User login
News and Views that Matter to Pediatricians
The leading independent newspaper covering news and commentary in pediatrics.
Customized Video Games Promising for ADHD, Depression, in Children
, results of a new review and meta-analysis suggested.
Although the video game–based or “gamified” digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) were associated with modest improvements in ADHD symptoms and depression, investigators found no significant benefit in the treatment of anxiety.
“The studies are showing these video games really do work, at least for ADHD and depression but maybe not for anxiety,” said Barry Bryant, MD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.
“The results may assist clinicians as they make recommendations to patients and parents regarding the efficacy of using these video games to treat mental health conditions.”
The findings were presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2024 Annual Meeting.
A Major Problem
Childhood mental illness is a “big problem,” with about 20% of children facing some mental health challenge such as ADHD, anxiety, or depression, said Dr. Bryant. Unfortunately, these youngsters typically have to wait a while to see a provider, he added.
DMHIs may be an option to consider in the meantime to help meet the increasing demand for treatment, he said.
Gamified DMHIs are like other video games, in that players advance in levels on digital platforms and are rewarded for progress. But they’re created specifically to target certain mental health conditions.
An ADHD game, for example, might involve users completing activities that require an increasing degree of attention. Games focused on depression might incorporate mindfulness and meditation practices or cognitive behavioral elements.
Experts in child psychiatry are involved in developing such games along with professionals in business and video game technology, said Dr. Bryant.
But the question is: Do these games really work?
Effective for ADHD, Depression
Investigators reviewed nearly 30 randomized controlled trials of gamified DMHIs as a treatment for anxiety, depression, and/or ADHD in people younger than 18 years that were published from January 1, 1990, to April 7, 2023.
The trials tested a wide variety of gamified DMHIs that fit the inclusion criteria: A control condition, a digital game intervention, sufficient data to calculate effect size, and available in English.
A meta-analysis was performed to examine the therapeutic effects of the gamified DMHIs for ADHD, depression, and anxiety. For all studies, the active treatment was compared with the control condition using Hedges’ g to measure effect size and 95% CIs.
Dr. Bryant noted there was significant heterogeneity of therapeutic effects between the studies and their corresponding gamified interventions.
The study found gamified DMHIs had a modest therapeutic effect for treating ADHD (pooled g = 0.280; P = .005) and depression (pooled g = 0.279; P = .005) in children and adolescents.
But games targeting anxiety didn’t seem to have the same positive impact (pooled g = 0.074; P = .197).
The results suggest the games “show potential and promise” for certain mental health conditions and could offer a “bridge” to accessing more traditional therapies, Dr. Bryant said.
“Maybe this is something that can help these children until they can get to see a psychiatrist, or it could be part of a comprehensive treatment plan,” he said.
The goal is to “make something that kids want to play and engage with” especially if they’re reluctant to sit in a therapist’s office.
The results provide clinicians with information they can actually use in their practices, said Dr. Bryant, adding that his team hopes to get their study published.
Gaining Traction
Commenting on the research, James Sherer, MD, medical director, Addiction Psychiatry, Overlook Medical Center, Atlantic Health System, said the study shows the literature supports video games, and these games “are gaining traction” in the field.
He noted the app for one such game, EndeavorRx, was one of the first to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat ADHD in young people aged 8-17 years.
EndeavorRx challenges players to chase mystic creatures, race through different worlds, and use “boosts” to problem-solve while building their own universe, according to the company website.
By being incentivized to engage in certain activities, “there’s a level of executive functioning that’s being exercised and the idea is to do that repetitively,” said Dr. Sherer.
Users and their parents report improved ADHD symptoms after playing the game. One of the studies included in the review found 73% of children who played EndeavorRx reported improvement in their attention.
The company says there have been no serious adverse events seen in any clinical trial of EndeavorRx.
Dr. Sherer noted that many child psychiatrists play some sort of video game with their young patients who may be on the autism spectrum or have a learning disability.
“That may be one of the few ways to communicate with and effectively bond with the patient,” he said.
Despite their reputation of being violent and associated with “toxic subcultures,” video games can do a lot of good and be “restorative” for patients of all ages, Dr. Sherer added.
No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, results of a new review and meta-analysis suggested.
Although the video game–based or “gamified” digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) were associated with modest improvements in ADHD symptoms and depression, investigators found no significant benefit in the treatment of anxiety.
“The studies are showing these video games really do work, at least for ADHD and depression but maybe not for anxiety,” said Barry Bryant, MD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.
“The results may assist clinicians as they make recommendations to patients and parents regarding the efficacy of using these video games to treat mental health conditions.”
The findings were presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2024 Annual Meeting.
A Major Problem
Childhood mental illness is a “big problem,” with about 20% of children facing some mental health challenge such as ADHD, anxiety, or depression, said Dr. Bryant. Unfortunately, these youngsters typically have to wait a while to see a provider, he added.
DMHIs may be an option to consider in the meantime to help meet the increasing demand for treatment, he said.
Gamified DMHIs are like other video games, in that players advance in levels on digital platforms and are rewarded for progress. But they’re created specifically to target certain mental health conditions.
An ADHD game, for example, might involve users completing activities that require an increasing degree of attention. Games focused on depression might incorporate mindfulness and meditation practices or cognitive behavioral elements.
Experts in child psychiatry are involved in developing such games along with professionals in business and video game technology, said Dr. Bryant.
But the question is: Do these games really work?
Effective for ADHD, Depression
Investigators reviewed nearly 30 randomized controlled trials of gamified DMHIs as a treatment for anxiety, depression, and/or ADHD in people younger than 18 years that were published from January 1, 1990, to April 7, 2023.
The trials tested a wide variety of gamified DMHIs that fit the inclusion criteria: A control condition, a digital game intervention, sufficient data to calculate effect size, and available in English.
A meta-analysis was performed to examine the therapeutic effects of the gamified DMHIs for ADHD, depression, and anxiety. For all studies, the active treatment was compared with the control condition using Hedges’ g to measure effect size and 95% CIs.
Dr. Bryant noted there was significant heterogeneity of therapeutic effects between the studies and their corresponding gamified interventions.
The study found gamified DMHIs had a modest therapeutic effect for treating ADHD (pooled g = 0.280; P = .005) and depression (pooled g = 0.279; P = .005) in children and adolescents.
But games targeting anxiety didn’t seem to have the same positive impact (pooled g = 0.074; P = .197).
The results suggest the games “show potential and promise” for certain mental health conditions and could offer a “bridge” to accessing more traditional therapies, Dr. Bryant said.
“Maybe this is something that can help these children until they can get to see a psychiatrist, or it could be part of a comprehensive treatment plan,” he said.
The goal is to “make something that kids want to play and engage with” especially if they’re reluctant to sit in a therapist’s office.
The results provide clinicians with information they can actually use in their practices, said Dr. Bryant, adding that his team hopes to get their study published.
Gaining Traction
Commenting on the research, James Sherer, MD, medical director, Addiction Psychiatry, Overlook Medical Center, Atlantic Health System, said the study shows the literature supports video games, and these games “are gaining traction” in the field.
He noted the app for one such game, EndeavorRx, was one of the first to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat ADHD in young people aged 8-17 years.
EndeavorRx challenges players to chase mystic creatures, race through different worlds, and use “boosts” to problem-solve while building their own universe, according to the company website.
By being incentivized to engage in certain activities, “there’s a level of executive functioning that’s being exercised and the idea is to do that repetitively,” said Dr. Sherer.
Users and their parents report improved ADHD symptoms after playing the game. One of the studies included in the review found 73% of children who played EndeavorRx reported improvement in their attention.
The company says there have been no serious adverse events seen in any clinical trial of EndeavorRx.
Dr. Sherer noted that many child psychiatrists play some sort of video game with their young patients who may be on the autism spectrum or have a learning disability.
“That may be one of the few ways to communicate with and effectively bond with the patient,” he said.
Despite their reputation of being violent and associated with “toxic subcultures,” video games can do a lot of good and be “restorative” for patients of all ages, Dr. Sherer added.
No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, results of a new review and meta-analysis suggested.
Although the video game–based or “gamified” digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) were associated with modest improvements in ADHD symptoms and depression, investigators found no significant benefit in the treatment of anxiety.
“The studies are showing these video games really do work, at least for ADHD and depression but maybe not for anxiety,” said Barry Bryant, MD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.
“The results may assist clinicians as they make recommendations to patients and parents regarding the efficacy of using these video games to treat mental health conditions.”
The findings were presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2024 Annual Meeting.
A Major Problem
Childhood mental illness is a “big problem,” with about 20% of children facing some mental health challenge such as ADHD, anxiety, or depression, said Dr. Bryant. Unfortunately, these youngsters typically have to wait a while to see a provider, he added.
DMHIs may be an option to consider in the meantime to help meet the increasing demand for treatment, he said.
Gamified DMHIs are like other video games, in that players advance in levels on digital platforms and are rewarded for progress. But they’re created specifically to target certain mental health conditions.
An ADHD game, for example, might involve users completing activities that require an increasing degree of attention. Games focused on depression might incorporate mindfulness and meditation practices or cognitive behavioral elements.
Experts in child psychiatry are involved in developing such games along with professionals in business and video game technology, said Dr. Bryant.
But the question is: Do these games really work?
Effective for ADHD, Depression
Investigators reviewed nearly 30 randomized controlled trials of gamified DMHIs as a treatment for anxiety, depression, and/or ADHD in people younger than 18 years that were published from January 1, 1990, to April 7, 2023.
The trials tested a wide variety of gamified DMHIs that fit the inclusion criteria: A control condition, a digital game intervention, sufficient data to calculate effect size, and available in English.
A meta-analysis was performed to examine the therapeutic effects of the gamified DMHIs for ADHD, depression, and anxiety. For all studies, the active treatment was compared with the control condition using Hedges’ g to measure effect size and 95% CIs.
Dr. Bryant noted there was significant heterogeneity of therapeutic effects between the studies and their corresponding gamified interventions.
The study found gamified DMHIs had a modest therapeutic effect for treating ADHD (pooled g = 0.280; P = .005) and depression (pooled g = 0.279; P = .005) in children and adolescents.
But games targeting anxiety didn’t seem to have the same positive impact (pooled g = 0.074; P = .197).
The results suggest the games “show potential and promise” for certain mental health conditions and could offer a “bridge” to accessing more traditional therapies, Dr. Bryant said.
“Maybe this is something that can help these children until they can get to see a psychiatrist, or it could be part of a comprehensive treatment plan,” he said.
The goal is to “make something that kids want to play and engage with” especially if they’re reluctant to sit in a therapist’s office.
The results provide clinicians with information they can actually use in their practices, said Dr. Bryant, adding that his team hopes to get their study published.
Gaining Traction
Commenting on the research, James Sherer, MD, medical director, Addiction Psychiatry, Overlook Medical Center, Atlantic Health System, said the study shows the literature supports video games, and these games “are gaining traction” in the field.
He noted the app for one such game, EndeavorRx, was one of the first to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat ADHD in young people aged 8-17 years.
EndeavorRx challenges players to chase mystic creatures, race through different worlds, and use “boosts” to problem-solve while building their own universe, according to the company website.
By being incentivized to engage in certain activities, “there’s a level of executive functioning that’s being exercised and the idea is to do that repetitively,” said Dr. Sherer.
Users and their parents report improved ADHD symptoms after playing the game. One of the studies included in the review found 73% of children who played EndeavorRx reported improvement in their attention.
The company says there have been no serious adverse events seen in any clinical trial of EndeavorRx.
Dr. Sherer noted that many child psychiatrists play some sort of video game with their young patients who may be on the autism spectrum or have a learning disability.
“That may be one of the few ways to communicate with and effectively bond with the patient,” he said.
Despite their reputation of being violent and associated with “toxic subcultures,” video games can do a lot of good and be “restorative” for patients of all ages, Dr. Sherer added.
No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM APA 2024
New mRNA Vaccines in Development for Cancer and Infections
Martina Prelog, MD, a pediatric and adolescent medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, reported on the principles, research status, and perspectives for these vaccines at the 25th Travel and Health Forum of the Center for Travel Medicine in Berlin.
To understand the future, the immunologist first examined the past. “The induction of cellular and humoral immune responses by externally injected mRNA was discovered in the 1990s,” she said.
Instability Challenge
Significant hurdles in mRNA vaccinations included the instability of mRNA and the immune system’s ability to identify foreign mRNA as a threat and destroy mRNA fragments. “The breakthrough toward vaccination came through Dr. Katalin Karikó, who, along with Dr. Drew Weissman, both of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, discovered in 2005 that modifications of mRNA (replacing the nucleoside uridine with pseudouridine) enable better stability of mRNA, reduced immunogenicity, and higher translational capacity at the ribosomes,” said Dr. Prelog.
With this discovery, the two researchers paved the way for the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 and other diseases. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their discovery last year.
Improved Scalability
“Since 2009, mRNA vaccines have been studied as a treatment option for cancer,” said Dr. Prelog. “Since 2012, they have been studied for the influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV].” Consequently, several mRNA vaccines are currently in development or in approval studies. “The mRNA technology offers the advantage of quickly and flexibly responding to new variants of pathogens and the ability to scale up production when there is high demand for a particular vaccine.”
Different forms and designations of mRNA vaccines are used, depending on the application and desired effect, said Dr. Prelog.
In nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines, modifications in the mRNA sequence enable the mRNA to remain in the body longer and to induce protein synthesis more effectively.
Lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–encapsulated mRNA vaccines protect the coding mRNA sequences against degradation by the body’s enzymes and facilitate the uptake of mRNA into cells, where it then triggers the production of the desired protein. In addition, LNPs are involved in cell stimulation and support the self-adjuvant effect of mRNA vaccines, thus eliminating the need for adjuvants.
Self-amplifying mRNA vaccines include a special mRNA that replicates itself in the cell and contains a sequence for RNA replicase, in addition to the coding sequence for the protein. This composition enables increased production of the target protein without the need for a high amount of external mRNA administration. Such vaccines could trigger a longer and stronger immune response because the immune system has more time to interact with the protein.
Cancer Immunotherapy
Dr. Prelog also discussed personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.
Multivalent mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that codes for multiple antigens rather than just one protein to generate an immune response. These vaccines could be particularly useful in fighting pathogens with variable or changing surface structures or in eliciting protection against multiple pathogens simultaneously.
The technology of mRNA-encoded antibodies involves introducing mRNA into the cell, which creates light and heavy chains of antibodies. This step leads to the formation of antibodies targeted against toxins (eg, diphtheria and tetanus), animal venoms, infectious agents, or tumor cells.
Genetic Engineering
Dr. Prelog also reviewed genetic engineering techniques. In regenerative therapy or protein replacement therapy, skin fibroblasts or other cells are transfected with mRNA to enable conversion into induced pluripotent stem cells. This approach avoids the risk for DNA integration into the genome and associated mutation risks.
Another approach is making post-transcriptional modifications through RNA interference. For example, RNA structures can be used to inhibit the translation of disease-causing proteins. This technique is currently being tested against HIV and tumors such as melanoma.
In addition, mRNA technologies can be combined with CRISPR/Cas9 technology (“gene scissors”) to influence the creation of gene products even more precisely. The advantage of this technique is that mRNA is only transiently expressed, thus preventing unwanted side effects. Furthermore, mRNA is translated directly in the cytoplasm, leading to a faster initiation of gene editing.
Of the numerous ongoing clinical mRNA vaccine studies, around 70% focus on infections, about 12% on cancer, and the rest on autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders, said Dr. Prelog.
Research in Infections
Research in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology is the most advanced: mRNA vaccines against influenza and RSV are already in advanced clinical trials, Dr. Prelog told this news organization.
“Conventional influenza vaccines contain immunogenic surface molecules against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase in various combinations of influenza strains A and B and are produced in egg or cell cultures,” she said. “This is a time-consuming manufacturing process that takes months and, particularly with the egg-based process, bears the risk of changing the vaccine strain.”
“Additionally, influenza viruses undergo antigenic shift and drift through recombination, thus requiring annual adjustments to the vaccines. Thus, these influenza vaccines often lose accuracy in targeting circulating seasonal influenza strains.”
Several mRNA vaccines being tested contain not only coding sequences against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase but also for structural proteins of influenza viruses. “These are more conserved and mutate less easily, meaning they could serve as the basis for universal pandemic influenza vaccines,” said Dr. Prelog.
An advantage of mRNA vaccines, she added, is the strong cellular immune response that they elicit. This response is intended to provide additional protection alongside specific antibodies. An mRNA vaccine with coding sequences for the pre-fusion protein of RSV is in phase 3 trials for approval for vaccination in patients aged 60 years and older. It shows high effectiveness even in older patients and those with comorbidities.
Elaborate Purification Process
Bacterial origin plasmid DNA is used to produce mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 raised concerns that production-related DNA residues could pose a safety risk and cause autoimmune diseases.
These vaccines “typically undergo a very elaborate purification process,” said Dr. Prelog. “This involves enzymatic digestion with DNase to fragment and deplete plasmid DNA, followed by purification using chromatography columns, so that no safety-relevant DNA fragments should remain afterward.”
Thus, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut also pointed out the very small, fragmented plasmid DNA residues of bacterial origin in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose no risk, unlike residual DNA from animal cell culture might pose in other vaccines.
Prevention and Therapy
In addition to the numerous advantages of mRNA vaccines (such as rapid adaptability to new or mutated pathogens, scalability, rapid production capability, self-adjuvant effect, strong induction of cellular immune responses, and safety), there are also challenges in RNA technology as a preventive and therapeutic measure, according to Dr. Prelog.
“Stability and storability, as well as the costs of new vaccine developments, play a role, as do the long-term effects regarding the persistence of antibody and cellular responses,” she said. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, for example, showed a well-maintained cellular immune response despite a tendency toward a rapid decline in humoral immune response.
“The experience with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the new vaccine developments based on mRNA technology give hope for an efficient and safe preventive and therapeutic use, particularly in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology,” Dr. Prelog concluded.
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Martina Prelog, MD, a pediatric and adolescent medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, reported on the principles, research status, and perspectives for these vaccines at the 25th Travel and Health Forum of the Center for Travel Medicine in Berlin.
To understand the future, the immunologist first examined the past. “The induction of cellular and humoral immune responses by externally injected mRNA was discovered in the 1990s,” she said.
Instability Challenge
Significant hurdles in mRNA vaccinations included the instability of mRNA and the immune system’s ability to identify foreign mRNA as a threat and destroy mRNA fragments. “The breakthrough toward vaccination came through Dr. Katalin Karikó, who, along with Dr. Drew Weissman, both of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, discovered in 2005 that modifications of mRNA (replacing the nucleoside uridine with pseudouridine) enable better stability of mRNA, reduced immunogenicity, and higher translational capacity at the ribosomes,” said Dr. Prelog.
With this discovery, the two researchers paved the way for the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 and other diseases. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their discovery last year.
Improved Scalability
“Since 2009, mRNA vaccines have been studied as a treatment option for cancer,” said Dr. Prelog. “Since 2012, they have been studied for the influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV].” Consequently, several mRNA vaccines are currently in development or in approval studies. “The mRNA technology offers the advantage of quickly and flexibly responding to new variants of pathogens and the ability to scale up production when there is high demand for a particular vaccine.”
Different forms and designations of mRNA vaccines are used, depending on the application and desired effect, said Dr. Prelog.
In nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines, modifications in the mRNA sequence enable the mRNA to remain in the body longer and to induce protein synthesis more effectively.
Lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–encapsulated mRNA vaccines protect the coding mRNA sequences against degradation by the body’s enzymes and facilitate the uptake of mRNA into cells, where it then triggers the production of the desired protein. In addition, LNPs are involved in cell stimulation and support the self-adjuvant effect of mRNA vaccines, thus eliminating the need for adjuvants.
Self-amplifying mRNA vaccines include a special mRNA that replicates itself in the cell and contains a sequence for RNA replicase, in addition to the coding sequence for the protein. This composition enables increased production of the target protein without the need for a high amount of external mRNA administration. Such vaccines could trigger a longer and stronger immune response because the immune system has more time to interact with the protein.
Cancer Immunotherapy
Dr. Prelog also discussed personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.
Multivalent mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that codes for multiple antigens rather than just one protein to generate an immune response. These vaccines could be particularly useful in fighting pathogens with variable or changing surface structures or in eliciting protection against multiple pathogens simultaneously.
The technology of mRNA-encoded antibodies involves introducing mRNA into the cell, which creates light and heavy chains of antibodies. This step leads to the formation of antibodies targeted against toxins (eg, diphtheria and tetanus), animal venoms, infectious agents, or tumor cells.
Genetic Engineering
Dr. Prelog also reviewed genetic engineering techniques. In regenerative therapy or protein replacement therapy, skin fibroblasts or other cells are transfected with mRNA to enable conversion into induced pluripotent stem cells. This approach avoids the risk for DNA integration into the genome and associated mutation risks.
Another approach is making post-transcriptional modifications through RNA interference. For example, RNA structures can be used to inhibit the translation of disease-causing proteins. This technique is currently being tested against HIV and tumors such as melanoma.
In addition, mRNA technologies can be combined with CRISPR/Cas9 technology (“gene scissors”) to influence the creation of gene products even more precisely. The advantage of this technique is that mRNA is only transiently expressed, thus preventing unwanted side effects. Furthermore, mRNA is translated directly in the cytoplasm, leading to a faster initiation of gene editing.
Of the numerous ongoing clinical mRNA vaccine studies, around 70% focus on infections, about 12% on cancer, and the rest on autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders, said Dr. Prelog.
Research in Infections
Research in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology is the most advanced: mRNA vaccines against influenza and RSV are already in advanced clinical trials, Dr. Prelog told this news organization.
“Conventional influenza vaccines contain immunogenic surface molecules against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase in various combinations of influenza strains A and B and are produced in egg or cell cultures,” she said. “This is a time-consuming manufacturing process that takes months and, particularly with the egg-based process, bears the risk of changing the vaccine strain.”
“Additionally, influenza viruses undergo antigenic shift and drift through recombination, thus requiring annual adjustments to the vaccines. Thus, these influenza vaccines often lose accuracy in targeting circulating seasonal influenza strains.”
Several mRNA vaccines being tested contain not only coding sequences against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase but also for structural proteins of influenza viruses. “These are more conserved and mutate less easily, meaning they could serve as the basis for universal pandemic influenza vaccines,” said Dr. Prelog.
An advantage of mRNA vaccines, she added, is the strong cellular immune response that they elicit. This response is intended to provide additional protection alongside specific antibodies. An mRNA vaccine with coding sequences for the pre-fusion protein of RSV is in phase 3 trials for approval for vaccination in patients aged 60 years and older. It shows high effectiveness even in older patients and those with comorbidities.
Elaborate Purification Process
Bacterial origin plasmid DNA is used to produce mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 raised concerns that production-related DNA residues could pose a safety risk and cause autoimmune diseases.
These vaccines “typically undergo a very elaborate purification process,” said Dr. Prelog. “This involves enzymatic digestion with DNase to fragment and deplete plasmid DNA, followed by purification using chromatography columns, so that no safety-relevant DNA fragments should remain afterward.”
Thus, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut also pointed out the very small, fragmented plasmid DNA residues of bacterial origin in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose no risk, unlike residual DNA from animal cell culture might pose in other vaccines.
Prevention and Therapy
In addition to the numerous advantages of mRNA vaccines (such as rapid adaptability to new or mutated pathogens, scalability, rapid production capability, self-adjuvant effect, strong induction of cellular immune responses, and safety), there are also challenges in RNA technology as a preventive and therapeutic measure, according to Dr. Prelog.
“Stability and storability, as well as the costs of new vaccine developments, play a role, as do the long-term effects regarding the persistence of antibody and cellular responses,” she said. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, for example, showed a well-maintained cellular immune response despite a tendency toward a rapid decline in humoral immune response.
“The experience with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the new vaccine developments based on mRNA technology give hope for an efficient and safe preventive and therapeutic use, particularly in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology,” Dr. Prelog concluded.
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Martina Prelog, MD, a pediatric and adolescent medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, reported on the principles, research status, and perspectives for these vaccines at the 25th Travel and Health Forum of the Center for Travel Medicine in Berlin.
To understand the future, the immunologist first examined the past. “The induction of cellular and humoral immune responses by externally injected mRNA was discovered in the 1990s,” she said.
Instability Challenge
Significant hurdles in mRNA vaccinations included the instability of mRNA and the immune system’s ability to identify foreign mRNA as a threat and destroy mRNA fragments. “The breakthrough toward vaccination came through Dr. Katalin Karikó, who, along with Dr. Drew Weissman, both of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, discovered in 2005 that modifications of mRNA (replacing the nucleoside uridine with pseudouridine) enable better stability of mRNA, reduced immunogenicity, and higher translational capacity at the ribosomes,” said Dr. Prelog.
With this discovery, the two researchers paved the way for the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 and other diseases. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their discovery last year.
Improved Scalability
“Since 2009, mRNA vaccines have been studied as a treatment option for cancer,” said Dr. Prelog. “Since 2012, they have been studied for the influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV].” Consequently, several mRNA vaccines are currently in development or in approval studies. “The mRNA technology offers the advantage of quickly and flexibly responding to new variants of pathogens and the ability to scale up production when there is high demand for a particular vaccine.”
Different forms and designations of mRNA vaccines are used, depending on the application and desired effect, said Dr. Prelog.
In nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines, modifications in the mRNA sequence enable the mRNA to remain in the body longer and to induce protein synthesis more effectively.
Lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–encapsulated mRNA vaccines protect the coding mRNA sequences against degradation by the body’s enzymes and facilitate the uptake of mRNA into cells, where it then triggers the production of the desired protein. In addition, LNPs are involved in cell stimulation and support the self-adjuvant effect of mRNA vaccines, thus eliminating the need for adjuvants.
Self-amplifying mRNA vaccines include a special mRNA that replicates itself in the cell and contains a sequence for RNA replicase, in addition to the coding sequence for the protein. This composition enables increased production of the target protein without the need for a high amount of external mRNA administration. Such vaccines could trigger a longer and stronger immune response because the immune system has more time to interact with the protein.
Cancer Immunotherapy
Dr. Prelog also discussed personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.
Multivalent mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that codes for multiple antigens rather than just one protein to generate an immune response. These vaccines could be particularly useful in fighting pathogens with variable or changing surface structures or in eliciting protection against multiple pathogens simultaneously.
The technology of mRNA-encoded antibodies involves introducing mRNA into the cell, which creates light and heavy chains of antibodies. This step leads to the formation of antibodies targeted against toxins (eg, diphtheria and tetanus), animal venoms, infectious agents, or tumor cells.
Genetic Engineering
Dr. Prelog also reviewed genetic engineering techniques. In regenerative therapy or protein replacement therapy, skin fibroblasts or other cells are transfected with mRNA to enable conversion into induced pluripotent stem cells. This approach avoids the risk for DNA integration into the genome and associated mutation risks.
Another approach is making post-transcriptional modifications through RNA interference. For example, RNA structures can be used to inhibit the translation of disease-causing proteins. This technique is currently being tested against HIV and tumors such as melanoma.
In addition, mRNA technologies can be combined with CRISPR/Cas9 technology (“gene scissors”) to influence the creation of gene products even more precisely. The advantage of this technique is that mRNA is only transiently expressed, thus preventing unwanted side effects. Furthermore, mRNA is translated directly in the cytoplasm, leading to a faster initiation of gene editing.
Of the numerous ongoing clinical mRNA vaccine studies, around 70% focus on infections, about 12% on cancer, and the rest on autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders, said Dr. Prelog.
Research in Infections
Research in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology is the most advanced: mRNA vaccines against influenza and RSV are already in advanced clinical trials, Dr. Prelog told this news organization.
“Conventional influenza vaccines contain immunogenic surface molecules against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase in various combinations of influenza strains A and B and are produced in egg or cell cultures,” she said. “This is a time-consuming manufacturing process that takes months and, particularly with the egg-based process, bears the risk of changing the vaccine strain.”
“Additionally, influenza viruses undergo antigenic shift and drift through recombination, thus requiring annual adjustments to the vaccines. Thus, these influenza vaccines often lose accuracy in targeting circulating seasonal influenza strains.”
Several mRNA vaccines being tested contain not only coding sequences against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase but also for structural proteins of influenza viruses. “These are more conserved and mutate less easily, meaning they could serve as the basis for universal pandemic influenza vaccines,” said Dr. Prelog.
An advantage of mRNA vaccines, she added, is the strong cellular immune response that they elicit. This response is intended to provide additional protection alongside specific antibodies. An mRNA vaccine with coding sequences for the pre-fusion protein of RSV is in phase 3 trials for approval for vaccination in patients aged 60 years and older. It shows high effectiveness even in older patients and those with comorbidities.
Elaborate Purification Process
Bacterial origin plasmid DNA is used to produce mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 raised concerns that production-related DNA residues could pose a safety risk and cause autoimmune diseases.
These vaccines “typically undergo a very elaborate purification process,” said Dr. Prelog. “This involves enzymatic digestion with DNase to fragment and deplete plasmid DNA, followed by purification using chromatography columns, so that no safety-relevant DNA fragments should remain afterward.”
Thus, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut also pointed out the very small, fragmented plasmid DNA residues of bacterial origin in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose no risk, unlike residual DNA from animal cell culture might pose in other vaccines.
Prevention and Therapy
In addition to the numerous advantages of mRNA vaccines (such as rapid adaptability to new or mutated pathogens, scalability, rapid production capability, self-adjuvant effect, strong induction of cellular immune responses, and safety), there are also challenges in RNA technology as a preventive and therapeutic measure, according to Dr. Prelog.
“Stability and storability, as well as the costs of new vaccine developments, play a role, as do the long-term effects regarding the persistence of antibody and cellular responses,” she said. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, for example, showed a well-maintained cellular immune response despite a tendency toward a rapid decline in humoral immune response.
“The experience with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the new vaccine developments based on mRNA technology give hope for an efficient and safe preventive and therapeutic use, particularly in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology,” Dr. Prelog concluded.
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Rural Health System ‘Teetering on Brink’ of Collapse, Says AMA
Physicians are leaving healthcare in droves, “not because they don’t want to practice ... but because the system is making it more and more difficult for them to care for their patients,” Bruce Scott, MD, president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said at a press conference May 9 at the National Rural Health Association’s Annual Conference in New Orleans.
He said that shrinking reimbursement rates and excessive administrative tasks are pushing doctors out of the workforce, exacerbating physician shortages in rural locations where 46 million Americans live.
A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report found that people living in rural areas are more likely to die early from preventable causes than their urban counterparts, said Dr. Scott.
He said the AMA wants Congress to pass legislation to incentivize more physicians to work in rural areas and expand the number of rural and primary care residency spots. Historically, 80% of residents practice within 80 miles of where they complete residency, he said.
Dr. Scott also hopes Congress will revise the J-1 visa rules to allow qualified international medical graduates to continue to practice in the United States. He’d like to see the pandemic telehealth flexibilities made permanent because these loosened guidelines greatly improved care access for rural areas in recent years.
Lower Pay Affects Care in Rural, Urban Areas
Decreased reimbursements also have hit rural and urban doctors in independent practice particularly hard, Dr. Scott said. When adjusted for inflation, the current Medicare payment rate for physicians has dropped 29% since 2001, he said. Now that commercial payers tie their reimbursement models to the Medicare rate, physicians are experiencing “severe” financial stress amid rising practice costs and student loan debt.
He shared anecdotes about how these issues have affected his private otolaryngology practice in Louisville, Kentucky, a state where more than 2 million people live in federally designated primary care professional shortage areas.
“A major insurance company that controls over 60% of the private payer market in rural Kentucky [recently] offered us ... surgical rates less than they paid us 6 years ago,” he said.
Dr. Scott said physicians must make difficult choices. “Do we not invest in the latest physical equipment? Do we reduce our number of employees? Do we perhaps stop accepting new Medicare patients?”
He noted that physicians now spend twice as much time on prior authorizations and other administrative tasks as they do on direct patient care. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 33% of physicians reported that the cumbersome prior authorization process led to a serious adverse event for a patient. Eighty percent reported it caused their patient to forgo treatment altogether.
Dr. Scott, who will be sworn in as AMA president in June, said he experiences the frustration daily.
“I have to get on the phone and justify to an insurance person who rarely has gone to medical school, has never seen the patient, and heck, in my case, sometimes they can’t even say otolaryngology, much less tell me what the appropriate care is for my patient,” he said.
When asked about the impact of private equity in healthcare, Dr. Scott said there is room for all different modes of practice, but private equity could bring a unique benefit.
“They have deeper pockets to potentially invest in telehealth technology, AI, and better computer systems,” he said.
But, he said, some private equity-owned systems have abandoned rural areas, and in other regions they “push the physicians to move faster, see more patients, and do the things that are profit-driven.
“The key is to continue to provide ... quality medical care that is determined by an individual physician in consultation with the patient.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians are leaving healthcare in droves, “not because they don’t want to practice ... but because the system is making it more and more difficult for them to care for their patients,” Bruce Scott, MD, president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said at a press conference May 9 at the National Rural Health Association’s Annual Conference in New Orleans.
He said that shrinking reimbursement rates and excessive administrative tasks are pushing doctors out of the workforce, exacerbating physician shortages in rural locations where 46 million Americans live.
A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report found that people living in rural areas are more likely to die early from preventable causes than their urban counterparts, said Dr. Scott.
He said the AMA wants Congress to pass legislation to incentivize more physicians to work in rural areas and expand the number of rural and primary care residency spots. Historically, 80% of residents practice within 80 miles of where they complete residency, he said.
Dr. Scott also hopes Congress will revise the J-1 visa rules to allow qualified international medical graduates to continue to practice in the United States. He’d like to see the pandemic telehealth flexibilities made permanent because these loosened guidelines greatly improved care access for rural areas in recent years.
Lower Pay Affects Care in Rural, Urban Areas
Decreased reimbursements also have hit rural and urban doctors in independent practice particularly hard, Dr. Scott said. When adjusted for inflation, the current Medicare payment rate for physicians has dropped 29% since 2001, he said. Now that commercial payers tie their reimbursement models to the Medicare rate, physicians are experiencing “severe” financial stress amid rising practice costs and student loan debt.
He shared anecdotes about how these issues have affected his private otolaryngology practice in Louisville, Kentucky, a state where more than 2 million people live in federally designated primary care professional shortage areas.
“A major insurance company that controls over 60% of the private payer market in rural Kentucky [recently] offered us ... surgical rates less than they paid us 6 years ago,” he said.
Dr. Scott said physicians must make difficult choices. “Do we not invest in the latest physical equipment? Do we reduce our number of employees? Do we perhaps stop accepting new Medicare patients?”
He noted that physicians now spend twice as much time on prior authorizations and other administrative tasks as they do on direct patient care. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 33% of physicians reported that the cumbersome prior authorization process led to a serious adverse event for a patient. Eighty percent reported it caused their patient to forgo treatment altogether.
Dr. Scott, who will be sworn in as AMA president in June, said he experiences the frustration daily.
“I have to get on the phone and justify to an insurance person who rarely has gone to medical school, has never seen the patient, and heck, in my case, sometimes they can’t even say otolaryngology, much less tell me what the appropriate care is for my patient,” he said.
When asked about the impact of private equity in healthcare, Dr. Scott said there is room for all different modes of practice, but private equity could bring a unique benefit.
“They have deeper pockets to potentially invest in telehealth technology, AI, and better computer systems,” he said.
But, he said, some private equity-owned systems have abandoned rural areas, and in other regions they “push the physicians to move faster, see more patients, and do the things that are profit-driven.
“The key is to continue to provide ... quality medical care that is determined by an individual physician in consultation with the patient.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians are leaving healthcare in droves, “not because they don’t want to practice ... but because the system is making it more and more difficult for them to care for their patients,” Bruce Scott, MD, president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said at a press conference May 9 at the National Rural Health Association’s Annual Conference in New Orleans.
He said that shrinking reimbursement rates and excessive administrative tasks are pushing doctors out of the workforce, exacerbating physician shortages in rural locations where 46 million Americans live.
A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report found that people living in rural areas are more likely to die early from preventable causes than their urban counterparts, said Dr. Scott.
He said the AMA wants Congress to pass legislation to incentivize more physicians to work in rural areas and expand the number of rural and primary care residency spots. Historically, 80% of residents practice within 80 miles of where they complete residency, he said.
Dr. Scott also hopes Congress will revise the J-1 visa rules to allow qualified international medical graduates to continue to practice in the United States. He’d like to see the pandemic telehealth flexibilities made permanent because these loosened guidelines greatly improved care access for rural areas in recent years.
Lower Pay Affects Care in Rural, Urban Areas
Decreased reimbursements also have hit rural and urban doctors in independent practice particularly hard, Dr. Scott said. When adjusted for inflation, the current Medicare payment rate for physicians has dropped 29% since 2001, he said. Now that commercial payers tie their reimbursement models to the Medicare rate, physicians are experiencing “severe” financial stress amid rising practice costs and student loan debt.
He shared anecdotes about how these issues have affected his private otolaryngology practice in Louisville, Kentucky, a state where more than 2 million people live in federally designated primary care professional shortage areas.
“A major insurance company that controls over 60% of the private payer market in rural Kentucky [recently] offered us ... surgical rates less than they paid us 6 years ago,” he said.
Dr. Scott said physicians must make difficult choices. “Do we not invest in the latest physical equipment? Do we reduce our number of employees? Do we perhaps stop accepting new Medicare patients?”
He noted that physicians now spend twice as much time on prior authorizations and other administrative tasks as they do on direct patient care. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 33% of physicians reported that the cumbersome prior authorization process led to a serious adverse event for a patient. Eighty percent reported it caused their patient to forgo treatment altogether.
Dr. Scott, who will be sworn in as AMA president in June, said he experiences the frustration daily.
“I have to get on the phone and justify to an insurance person who rarely has gone to medical school, has never seen the patient, and heck, in my case, sometimes they can’t even say otolaryngology, much less tell me what the appropriate care is for my patient,” he said.
When asked about the impact of private equity in healthcare, Dr. Scott said there is room for all different modes of practice, but private equity could bring a unique benefit.
“They have deeper pockets to potentially invest in telehealth technology, AI, and better computer systems,” he said.
But, he said, some private equity-owned systems have abandoned rural areas, and in other regions they “push the physicians to move faster, see more patients, and do the things that are profit-driven.
“The key is to continue to provide ... quality medical care that is determined by an individual physician in consultation with the patient.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Can a Risk Score Predict Kidney Injury After Cisplatin?
Cisplatin is a preferred treatment for a wide range of cancers, including breast, head and neck, lung, ovary, and more. However, its side effects — particularly nephrotoxicity — can be severe. Kidney injury on cisplatin is associated with higher mortality and can jeopardize a patient’s eligibility for other therapies.
Now, in a large study using data from six US cancer centers, researchers have developed a risk algorithm to predict acute kidney injury (AKI) after cisplatin administration.
A risk prediction calculator based on the algorithm is available online for patients and providers to determine an individual patient›s risk for kidney injury from cisplatin using readily available clinical data.
Other risk scores and risk prediction models have been developed to help clinicians assess in advance whether a patient might develop AKI after receiving cisplatin, so that more careful monitoring, dose adjustments, or an alternative treatment, if available, might be considered.
However, previous models were limited by factors such as small sample sizes, lack of external validation, older data, and liberal definitions of AKI, said Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, director of onco-nephrology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, director of clinical and translational research in AKI, Division of Renal Medicine, BWH, Boston.
Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf believe their risk score for predicting severe AKI after intravenous (IV) cisplatin, published online in The BMJ, is “more accurate and generalizable than prior models for several reasons,” they told this news organization in a joint email.
“First, we externally validated our findings across cancer centers other than the one where it was developed,” they said. “Second, we focused on moderate to severe kidney injury, the most clinically relevant form of kidney damage, whereas prior models examined more mild forms of kidney injury. Third, we collected data on nearly 25,000 patients receiving their first dose of IV cisplatin, which is larger than all previous studies combined.”
‘Herculean Effort’
“We conceived of this study back in 2018, contacted collaborators at each participating cancer center, and had numerous meetings to try to gather granular data on patients treated with their first dose of intravenous (IV) cisplatin,” Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf explained. They also incorporated patient feedback from focus groups and surveys.
“This was truly a Herculean effort that involved physicians, programmers, research coordinators, and patients,” they said.
The multicenter study included 24,717 patients — 11,766 in the derivation cohort and 12,951 in the validation cohort. Overall, the median age was about 60 years, about 58% were men, and about 78% were White.
The primary outcome was cisplatin-induced AKI (CP-AKI), defined as a twofold or greater increase in serum creatinine or kidney replacement therapy within 14 days of a first dose of IV cisplatin.
Their simple risk score consisting of nine covariates — age, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, hemoglobin level, white blood cell count, platelet count, serum albumin level, serum magnesium level, and cisplatin dose — predicted a higher risk for CP-AKI in both cohorts.
Notably, adding serum creatinine to the model did not change the area under the curve, and therefore, serum creatinine, though also an independent risk factor for CP-AKI, was not included in the score.
Patients in the highest risk category had 24-fold higher odds of CP-AKI in the derivation cohort and close to 18-fold higher odds in the validation cohort than those in the lowest risk category.
The primary model had a C statistic of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.73-0.76) and showed better discrimination for CP-AKI than previously published models, for which the C statistics ranged from 0.60 to 0.68. The first author of a paper on an earlier model, Shveta Motwani, MD, MMSc, of BWH and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, is also a coauthor of the new study.
Greater severity of CP-AKI was associated with shorter 90-day survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.63; 95% CI, 3.56-6.02) for stage III CP-AKI vs no CP-AKI.
‘Definitive Work’
Joel M. Topf, MD, a nephrologist with expertise in chronic kidney disease in Detroit, who wasn’t involved in the development of the risk score, called the study “a definitive work on an important concept in oncology and nephrology.”
“While this is not the first attempt to devise a risk score, it is by far the biggest,” he told this news organization. Furthermore, the authors “used a diverse population, recruiting patients with a variety of cancers (previous attempts had often used a homogenous diagnosis, putting into question how generalizable the results were) from six different cancer centers.”
In addition, he said, “The authors did not restrict patients with chronic kidney disease or other significant comorbidities and used the geographic diversity to produce a cohort that has an age, gender, racial, and ethnic distribution, which is more representative of the US than previous, single-center attempts to risk score patients.”
An earlier model used the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) consensus definition of AKI of an increase in serum creatinine of 0.3 mg/dL, he noted. “While a sensitive definition of AKI, it captures mild, hemodynamic increases in creatinine of questionable significance,” he said.
By contrast, the new score uses KDIGO stage II and above to define AKI. “This is a better choice, as we do not want to dissuade patients and doctors from choosing chemotherapy due to a fear of insignificant kidney damage,” he said.
All that said, Dr. Topf noted that neither the current score nor the earlier model included serum creatinine. “This is curious to me and may represent the small number of patients with representative elevated creatinine in the derivation cohort (only 1.3% with an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 45).”
“Since the cohort is made up of people who received cis-platinum, the low prevalence of eGFRs < 45 may be due to physicians steering away from cis-platinum in this group,” he suggested. “It would be unfortunate if this risk score gave an unintentional ‘green light’ to these patients, exposing them to predictable harm.”
‘Certainly Useful’
Anushree Shirali, MD, an associate professor in the Section of Nephrology and consulting physician, Yale Onco-Nephrology, Yale School of Medicine, in New Haven, Connecticut, said that having a prediction score for which patients are more likely to develop AKI after a single dose of cisplatin would be helpful for oncologists, as well as nephrologists.
As a nephrologist, Dr. Shirali mostly sees patients who already have AKI, she told this news organization. But there are circumstances in which the tool could still be helpful.
“Let’s say someone has abnormal kidney function at baseline — ie, creatinine is higher than the normal range — and they were on dialysis 5 years ago for something else, and now, they have cancer and may be given cisplatin. They worry about their chances of getting AKI and needing dialysis again,” she said. “That’s just one scenario in which I might be asked to answer that question and the tool would certainly be useful.”
Other scenarios could include someone who has just one kidney because they donated a kidney for transplant years ago, and now, they have a malignancy and wonder what their actual risk is of getting kidney issues on cisplatin.
Oncologists could use the tool to determine whether a patient should be treated with cisplatin, or if they’re at high risk, whether an alternative that’s not nephrotoxic might be used. By contrast, “if somebody’s low risk and an oncologist thinks cisplatin is the best agent they have, then they might want to go ahead and use it,” Dr. Shirali said.
Future research could take into consideration that CP-AKI is dose dependent, she suggested, because a prediction score that included the number of cisplatin doses could be even more helpful to determine risk. And, even though the derivation and validation cohorts for the new tool are representative of the US population, additional research should also include more racial/ethnic diversity, she said.
Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf hope their tool “will be utilized immediately by patients and providers to help predict an individual’s risk of cisplatin-associated kidney damage. It is easy to use, available for free online, and incorporates readily available clinical variables.”
If a patient is at high risk, the clinical team can consider preventive measures such as administering more IV fluids before receiving cisplatin or monitoring kidney function more closely afterward, they suggested.
Dr. Gupta reported research support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. She also reported research funding from BTG International, GE HealthCare, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. She is a member of GlaxoSmithKline’s Global Anemia Council, a consultant for Secretome and Proletariat Therapeutics, and founder and president emeritus of the American Society of Onconephrology (unpaid). Dr. Leaf is supported by NIH grants, reported research support from BioPorto, BTG International, and Metro International Biotech, and has served as a consultant. Dr. Topf reported an ownership stake in a few DaVita-run dialysis clinics. He also runs a vascular access center and has participated in advisory boards with Cara Therapeutics, Vifor, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Renibus Therapeutics, Travere Therapeutics, and GlaxoSmithKline. He is president of NephJC, a nonprofit educational organization with no industry support. Dr. Shirali declared no competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Cisplatin is a preferred treatment for a wide range of cancers, including breast, head and neck, lung, ovary, and more. However, its side effects — particularly nephrotoxicity — can be severe. Kidney injury on cisplatin is associated with higher mortality and can jeopardize a patient’s eligibility for other therapies.
Now, in a large study using data from six US cancer centers, researchers have developed a risk algorithm to predict acute kidney injury (AKI) after cisplatin administration.
A risk prediction calculator based on the algorithm is available online for patients and providers to determine an individual patient›s risk for kidney injury from cisplatin using readily available clinical data.
Other risk scores and risk prediction models have been developed to help clinicians assess in advance whether a patient might develop AKI after receiving cisplatin, so that more careful monitoring, dose adjustments, or an alternative treatment, if available, might be considered.
However, previous models were limited by factors such as small sample sizes, lack of external validation, older data, and liberal definitions of AKI, said Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, director of onco-nephrology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, director of clinical and translational research in AKI, Division of Renal Medicine, BWH, Boston.
Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf believe their risk score for predicting severe AKI after intravenous (IV) cisplatin, published online in The BMJ, is “more accurate and generalizable than prior models for several reasons,” they told this news organization in a joint email.
“First, we externally validated our findings across cancer centers other than the one where it was developed,” they said. “Second, we focused on moderate to severe kidney injury, the most clinically relevant form of kidney damage, whereas prior models examined more mild forms of kidney injury. Third, we collected data on nearly 25,000 patients receiving their first dose of IV cisplatin, which is larger than all previous studies combined.”
‘Herculean Effort’
“We conceived of this study back in 2018, contacted collaborators at each participating cancer center, and had numerous meetings to try to gather granular data on patients treated with their first dose of intravenous (IV) cisplatin,” Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf explained. They also incorporated patient feedback from focus groups and surveys.
“This was truly a Herculean effort that involved physicians, programmers, research coordinators, and patients,” they said.
The multicenter study included 24,717 patients — 11,766 in the derivation cohort and 12,951 in the validation cohort. Overall, the median age was about 60 years, about 58% were men, and about 78% were White.
The primary outcome was cisplatin-induced AKI (CP-AKI), defined as a twofold or greater increase in serum creatinine or kidney replacement therapy within 14 days of a first dose of IV cisplatin.
Their simple risk score consisting of nine covariates — age, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, hemoglobin level, white blood cell count, platelet count, serum albumin level, serum magnesium level, and cisplatin dose — predicted a higher risk for CP-AKI in both cohorts.
Notably, adding serum creatinine to the model did not change the area under the curve, and therefore, serum creatinine, though also an independent risk factor for CP-AKI, was not included in the score.
Patients in the highest risk category had 24-fold higher odds of CP-AKI in the derivation cohort and close to 18-fold higher odds in the validation cohort than those in the lowest risk category.
The primary model had a C statistic of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.73-0.76) and showed better discrimination for CP-AKI than previously published models, for which the C statistics ranged from 0.60 to 0.68. The first author of a paper on an earlier model, Shveta Motwani, MD, MMSc, of BWH and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, is also a coauthor of the new study.
Greater severity of CP-AKI was associated with shorter 90-day survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.63; 95% CI, 3.56-6.02) for stage III CP-AKI vs no CP-AKI.
‘Definitive Work’
Joel M. Topf, MD, a nephrologist with expertise in chronic kidney disease in Detroit, who wasn’t involved in the development of the risk score, called the study “a definitive work on an important concept in oncology and nephrology.”
“While this is not the first attempt to devise a risk score, it is by far the biggest,” he told this news organization. Furthermore, the authors “used a diverse population, recruiting patients with a variety of cancers (previous attempts had often used a homogenous diagnosis, putting into question how generalizable the results were) from six different cancer centers.”
In addition, he said, “The authors did not restrict patients with chronic kidney disease or other significant comorbidities and used the geographic diversity to produce a cohort that has an age, gender, racial, and ethnic distribution, which is more representative of the US than previous, single-center attempts to risk score patients.”
An earlier model used the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) consensus definition of AKI of an increase in serum creatinine of 0.3 mg/dL, he noted. “While a sensitive definition of AKI, it captures mild, hemodynamic increases in creatinine of questionable significance,” he said.
By contrast, the new score uses KDIGO stage II and above to define AKI. “This is a better choice, as we do not want to dissuade patients and doctors from choosing chemotherapy due to a fear of insignificant kidney damage,” he said.
All that said, Dr. Topf noted that neither the current score nor the earlier model included serum creatinine. “This is curious to me and may represent the small number of patients with representative elevated creatinine in the derivation cohort (only 1.3% with an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 45).”
“Since the cohort is made up of people who received cis-platinum, the low prevalence of eGFRs < 45 may be due to physicians steering away from cis-platinum in this group,” he suggested. “It would be unfortunate if this risk score gave an unintentional ‘green light’ to these patients, exposing them to predictable harm.”
‘Certainly Useful’
Anushree Shirali, MD, an associate professor in the Section of Nephrology and consulting physician, Yale Onco-Nephrology, Yale School of Medicine, in New Haven, Connecticut, said that having a prediction score for which patients are more likely to develop AKI after a single dose of cisplatin would be helpful for oncologists, as well as nephrologists.
As a nephrologist, Dr. Shirali mostly sees patients who already have AKI, she told this news organization. But there are circumstances in which the tool could still be helpful.
“Let’s say someone has abnormal kidney function at baseline — ie, creatinine is higher than the normal range — and they were on dialysis 5 years ago for something else, and now, they have cancer and may be given cisplatin. They worry about their chances of getting AKI and needing dialysis again,” she said. “That’s just one scenario in which I might be asked to answer that question and the tool would certainly be useful.”
Other scenarios could include someone who has just one kidney because they donated a kidney for transplant years ago, and now, they have a malignancy and wonder what their actual risk is of getting kidney issues on cisplatin.
Oncologists could use the tool to determine whether a patient should be treated with cisplatin, or if they’re at high risk, whether an alternative that’s not nephrotoxic might be used. By contrast, “if somebody’s low risk and an oncologist thinks cisplatin is the best agent they have, then they might want to go ahead and use it,” Dr. Shirali said.
Future research could take into consideration that CP-AKI is dose dependent, she suggested, because a prediction score that included the number of cisplatin doses could be even more helpful to determine risk. And, even though the derivation and validation cohorts for the new tool are representative of the US population, additional research should also include more racial/ethnic diversity, she said.
Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf hope their tool “will be utilized immediately by patients and providers to help predict an individual’s risk of cisplatin-associated kidney damage. It is easy to use, available for free online, and incorporates readily available clinical variables.”
If a patient is at high risk, the clinical team can consider preventive measures such as administering more IV fluids before receiving cisplatin or monitoring kidney function more closely afterward, they suggested.
Dr. Gupta reported research support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. She also reported research funding from BTG International, GE HealthCare, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. She is a member of GlaxoSmithKline’s Global Anemia Council, a consultant for Secretome and Proletariat Therapeutics, and founder and president emeritus of the American Society of Onconephrology (unpaid). Dr. Leaf is supported by NIH grants, reported research support from BioPorto, BTG International, and Metro International Biotech, and has served as a consultant. Dr. Topf reported an ownership stake in a few DaVita-run dialysis clinics. He also runs a vascular access center and has participated in advisory boards with Cara Therapeutics, Vifor, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Renibus Therapeutics, Travere Therapeutics, and GlaxoSmithKline. He is president of NephJC, a nonprofit educational organization with no industry support. Dr. Shirali declared no competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Cisplatin is a preferred treatment for a wide range of cancers, including breast, head and neck, lung, ovary, and more. However, its side effects — particularly nephrotoxicity — can be severe. Kidney injury on cisplatin is associated with higher mortality and can jeopardize a patient’s eligibility for other therapies.
Now, in a large study using data from six US cancer centers, researchers have developed a risk algorithm to predict acute kidney injury (AKI) after cisplatin administration.
A risk prediction calculator based on the algorithm is available online for patients and providers to determine an individual patient›s risk for kidney injury from cisplatin using readily available clinical data.
Other risk scores and risk prediction models have been developed to help clinicians assess in advance whether a patient might develop AKI after receiving cisplatin, so that more careful monitoring, dose adjustments, or an alternative treatment, if available, might be considered.
However, previous models were limited by factors such as small sample sizes, lack of external validation, older data, and liberal definitions of AKI, said Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, director of onco-nephrology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, director of clinical and translational research in AKI, Division of Renal Medicine, BWH, Boston.
Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf believe their risk score for predicting severe AKI after intravenous (IV) cisplatin, published online in The BMJ, is “more accurate and generalizable than prior models for several reasons,” they told this news organization in a joint email.
“First, we externally validated our findings across cancer centers other than the one where it was developed,” they said. “Second, we focused on moderate to severe kidney injury, the most clinically relevant form of kidney damage, whereas prior models examined more mild forms of kidney injury. Third, we collected data on nearly 25,000 patients receiving their first dose of IV cisplatin, which is larger than all previous studies combined.”
‘Herculean Effort’
“We conceived of this study back in 2018, contacted collaborators at each participating cancer center, and had numerous meetings to try to gather granular data on patients treated with their first dose of intravenous (IV) cisplatin,” Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf explained. They also incorporated patient feedback from focus groups and surveys.
“This was truly a Herculean effort that involved physicians, programmers, research coordinators, and patients,” they said.
The multicenter study included 24,717 patients — 11,766 in the derivation cohort and 12,951 in the validation cohort. Overall, the median age was about 60 years, about 58% were men, and about 78% were White.
The primary outcome was cisplatin-induced AKI (CP-AKI), defined as a twofold or greater increase in serum creatinine or kidney replacement therapy within 14 days of a first dose of IV cisplatin.
Their simple risk score consisting of nine covariates — age, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, hemoglobin level, white blood cell count, platelet count, serum albumin level, serum magnesium level, and cisplatin dose — predicted a higher risk for CP-AKI in both cohorts.
Notably, adding serum creatinine to the model did not change the area under the curve, and therefore, serum creatinine, though also an independent risk factor for CP-AKI, was not included in the score.
Patients in the highest risk category had 24-fold higher odds of CP-AKI in the derivation cohort and close to 18-fold higher odds in the validation cohort than those in the lowest risk category.
The primary model had a C statistic of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.73-0.76) and showed better discrimination for CP-AKI than previously published models, for which the C statistics ranged from 0.60 to 0.68. The first author of a paper on an earlier model, Shveta Motwani, MD, MMSc, of BWH and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, is also a coauthor of the new study.
Greater severity of CP-AKI was associated with shorter 90-day survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.63; 95% CI, 3.56-6.02) for stage III CP-AKI vs no CP-AKI.
‘Definitive Work’
Joel M. Topf, MD, a nephrologist with expertise in chronic kidney disease in Detroit, who wasn’t involved in the development of the risk score, called the study “a definitive work on an important concept in oncology and nephrology.”
“While this is not the first attempt to devise a risk score, it is by far the biggest,” he told this news organization. Furthermore, the authors “used a diverse population, recruiting patients with a variety of cancers (previous attempts had often used a homogenous diagnosis, putting into question how generalizable the results were) from six different cancer centers.”
In addition, he said, “The authors did not restrict patients with chronic kidney disease or other significant comorbidities and used the geographic diversity to produce a cohort that has an age, gender, racial, and ethnic distribution, which is more representative of the US than previous, single-center attempts to risk score patients.”
An earlier model used the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) consensus definition of AKI of an increase in serum creatinine of 0.3 mg/dL, he noted. “While a sensitive definition of AKI, it captures mild, hemodynamic increases in creatinine of questionable significance,” he said.
By contrast, the new score uses KDIGO stage II and above to define AKI. “This is a better choice, as we do not want to dissuade patients and doctors from choosing chemotherapy due to a fear of insignificant kidney damage,” he said.
All that said, Dr. Topf noted that neither the current score nor the earlier model included serum creatinine. “This is curious to me and may represent the small number of patients with representative elevated creatinine in the derivation cohort (only 1.3% with an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 45).”
“Since the cohort is made up of people who received cis-platinum, the low prevalence of eGFRs < 45 may be due to physicians steering away from cis-platinum in this group,” he suggested. “It would be unfortunate if this risk score gave an unintentional ‘green light’ to these patients, exposing them to predictable harm.”
‘Certainly Useful’
Anushree Shirali, MD, an associate professor in the Section of Nephrology and consulting physician, Yale Onco-Nephrology, Yale School of Medicine, in New Haven, Connecticut, said that having a prediction score for which patients are more likely to develop AKI after a single dose of cisplatin would be helpful for oncologists, as well as nephrologists.
As a nephrologist, Dr. Shirali mostly sees patients who already have AKI, she told this news organization. But there are circumstances in which the tool could still be helpful.
“Let’s say someone has abnormal kidney function at baseline — ie, creatinine is higher than the normal range — and they were on dialysis 5 years ago for something else, and now, they have cancer and may be given cisplatin. They worry about their chances of getting AKI and needing dialysis again,” she said. “That’s just one scenario in which I might be asked to answer that question and the tool would certainly be useful.”
Other scenarios could include someone who has just one kidney because they donated a kidney for transplant years ago, and now, they have a malignancy and wonder what their actual risk is of getting kidney issues on cisplatin.
Oncologists could use the tool to determine whether a patient should be treated with cisplatin, or if they’re at high risk, whether an alternative that’s not nephrotoxic might be used. By contrast, “if somebody’s low risk and an oncologist thinks cisplatin is the best agent they have, then they might want to go ahead and use it,” Dr. Shirali said.
Future research could take into consideration that CP-AKI is dose dependent, she suggested, because a prediction score that included the number of cisplatin doses could be even more helpful to determine risk. And, even though the derivation and validation cohorts for the new tool are representative of the US population, additional research should also include more racial/ethnic diversity, she said.
Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf hope their tool “will be utilized immediately by patients and providers to help predict an individual’s risk of cisplatin-associated kidney damage. It is easy to use, available for free online, and incorporates readily available clinical variables.”
If a patient is at high risk, the clinical team can consider preventive measures such as administering more IV fluids before receiving cisplatin or monitoring kidney function more closely afterward, they suggested.
Dr. Gupta reported research support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. She also reported research funding from BTG International, GE HealthCare, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. She is a member of GlaxoSmithKline’s Global Anemia Council, a consultant for Secretome and Proletariat Therapeutics, and founder and president emeritus of the American Society of Onconephrology (unpaid). Dr. Leaf is supported by NIH grants, reported research support from BioPorto, BTG International, and Metro International Biotech, and has served as a consultant. Dr. Topf reported an ownership stake in a few DaVita-run dialysis clinics. He also runs a vascular access center and has participated in advisory boards with Cara Therapeutics, Vifor, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Renibus Therapeutics, Travere Therapeutics, and GlaxoSmithKline. He is president of NephJC, a nonprofit educational organization with no industry support. Dr. Shirali declared no competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE BMJ
Top Predictors of Substance Initiation in Youth Flagged
, new research suggests.
Aside from sociodemographic parameters, risk factors for substance use initiation include prenatal exposure to substances, peer use of alcohol and nicotine, and problematic school behavior, among other things, the study showed.
The results show certain modifiable risk factors may play a role in preventing youth from starting to use substances, said study author ReJoyce Green, PhD, research assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
“If we’re designing, say, a prevention program or an early intervention program, these are things that could make a difference, so let’s make sure we’re bringing them into the conversation.”
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association American Psychiatric Association (APA) and published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.
Critical Risk Factors
Use of alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis often begins during adolescence. One recent survey showed that 23% of 13-year-olds reported using alcohol, 17% reported vaping nicotine, and 8% reported vaping cannabis. Other research links younger age at substance use initiation to a more rapid transition to substance use disorders and higher rates of psychiatric disorders.
Previous studies examining predictors of substance use initiation in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study dataset focused primarily on self-reported measures, but the current study also looked at models that include hormones and neurocognitive factors as well as neuroimaging.
This study included 6829, 9- and 10-year-olds from the ABCD Study who had never tried substances and were followed for 3 years.
A sophisticated statistical approach was used to examine 420 variables as predictors of substance use initiation. Initiation was defined as trying any nonprescribed substance by age 12 years. “That’s including a single sip of alcohol or puff of a cigarette,” said Dr. Green.
In addition to alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis, researchers looked at initiation of synthetic cannabinoids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and ketamine, among other substances.
Self-reported measures included demographic characteristics, self and peer involvement with substance use, parenting behaviors, mental and physical health, and culture and environmental factors.
The analytical approach used machine-learning algorithms to compare the ability of domains to identify the most critical risk factors. Magnitudes of coefficients were used to assess variable importance, with positive coefficients indicating greater likelihood of substance initiation and negative coefficients indicating lower likelihood of initiation.
By age 12 years, 14.4% of the children studied reported substance initiation. Alcohol was the substance most commonly initiated (365 individuals), followed by nicotine (94 individuals) and cannabis (40 individuals), with few or no children initiating other substances.
Both those who did and did not initiate substances were similarly aged, and most participants identified as White and non-Hispanic. But the substance-use group had a lower percentage of girls and higher percentage of White participants compared with the no-substance-use group.
The model with only self-reported data had similar accuracy in predicting substance use initiation (area under the curve [AUC], 0.67) as models that added resource-intensive measures such as neurocognitive tests and hormones (AUC, 0.67) and neuroimaging (AUC, 0.66).
Religious Predictors
The strongest predictors of substance use initiation were related to religion: Youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Mormonism were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.87), whereas youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Judaism were more likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.32).
The third top predictor was race: Black youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.32). This was followed by youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Islam who were also less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.25).
The research examined over 15 different religious categories, “so we really tried to be expansive,” noted Dr. Green.
It’s unclear why some religions appeared to have a protective impact when it comes to substance use initiation whereas others have the opposite effect. Future research could perhaps identify which components of religiosity affect substance use initiation. If so, these aspects could be developed and incorporated into prevention and intervention programs, said Dr. Green.
Next on the list of most important predictors was being a part of a household with an income of $12,000-$15,999; these youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.22).
Within the culture and environment domain, a history of detention or suspension was a top predictor of substance use initiation (coefficient, 0.20). Prenatal exposure to substance use was also a robust predictor in the physical health category (coefficient, 0.15).
Other predictors included: parents with less than a high school degree or GED (coefficient, -0.14), substance use availability (coefficient, 0.12), and age at baseline (coefficient, 0.12).
The study also showed that better cognitive functioning in selected domains (eg, cognitive control, attention, and language ability) is associated with a greater likelihood of substance use initiation.
Shaping Future Prevention
Applying these findings in clinical settings could help tailor prevention and early intervention efforts, said the authors. It might be prudent to allocate resources to collecting data related to self-, peer-, and familial-related factors, “which were more informative in predicting substance use initiation during late childhood and early adolescence in the present study,” they wrote.
Researchers will continue to track these children through to a 10-year follow-up, said Dr. Green. “I’m really curious to see if the factors we found when they were 12 and 13, such as those related to peers and family, still hold when they’re ages 17 and 18, because there’s going to be a huge amount of brain development that’s happening throughout this phase.”
The group that initiated substance use and the group that didn’t initiate substance use were not totally balanced, and sample sizes for some religious categories were small. Another study limitation was that the analytic approach didn’t account for multilevel data within the context of site and families.
Commenting on the findings, Kathleen Brady, MD, PhD, distinguished university professor and director, South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, said that the study is “critical and complex.” This, she said, is especially true as cannabis has become more accessible and potent, and as the federal government reportedly considers reclassifying it from a Schedule I drug (which includes highly dangerous, addictive substances with no medical use) to a Schedule III drug (which can be prescribed as a medication).
“The part that is the most frightening to me is the long-lasting effects that can happen when young people start using high-potency marijuana at an early age,” said Dr. Brady. “So, any information that we can give to parents, to teachers, to the public, and to doctors is important.”
She’s looking forward to getting more “incredibly important” information on substance use initiation as the study progresses and the teens get older.
The study received support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
Aside from sociodemographic parameters, risk factors for substance use initiation include prenatal exposure to substances, peer use of alcohol and nicotine, and problematic school behavior, among other things, the study showed.
The results show certain modifiable risk factors may play a role in preventing youth from starting to use substances, said study author ReJoyce Green, PhD, research assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
“If we’re designing, say, a prevention program or an early intervention program, these are things that could make a difference, so let’s make sure we’re bringing them into the conversation.”
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association American Psychiatric Association (APA) and published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.
Critical Risk Factors
Use of alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis often begins during adolescence. One recent survey showed that 23% of 13-year-olds reported using alcohol, 17% reported vaping nicotine, and 8% reported vaping cannabis. Other research links younger age at substance use initiation to a more rapid transition to substance use disorders and higher rates of psychiatric disorders.
Previous studies examining predictors of substance use initiation in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study dataset focused primarily on self-reported measures, but the current study also looked at models that include hormones and neurocognitive factors as well as neuroimaging.
This study included 6829, 9- and 10-year-olds from the ABCD Study who had never tried substances and were followed for 3 years.
A sophisticated statistical approach was used to examine 420 variables as predictors of substance use initiation. Initiation was defined as trying any nonprescribed substance by age 12 years. “That’s including a single sip of alcohol or puff of a cigarette,” said Dr. Green.
In addition to alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis, researchers looked at initiation of synthetic cannabinoids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and ketamine, among other substances.
Self-reported measures included demographic characteristics, self and peer involvement with substance use, parenting behaviors, mental and physical health, and culture and environmental factors.
The analytical approach used machine-learning algorithms to compare the ability of domains to identify the most critical risk factors. Magnitudes of coefficients were used to assess variable importance, with positive coefficients indicating greater likelihood of substance initiation and negative coefficients indicating lower likelihood of initiation.
By age 12 years, 14.4% of the children studied reported substance initiation. Alcohol was the substance most commonly initiated (365 individuals), followed by nicotine (94 individuals) and cannabis (40 individuals), with few or no children initiating other substances.
Both those who did and did not initiate substances were similarly aged, and most participants identified as White and non-Hispanic. But the substance-use group had a lower percentage of girls and higher percentage of White participants compared with the no-substance-use group.
The model with only self-reported data had similar accuracy in predicting substance use initiation (area under the curve [AUC], 0.67) as models that added resource-intensive measures such as neurocognitive tests and hormones (AUC, 0.67) and neuroimaging (AUC, 0.66).
Religious Predictors
The strongest predictors of substance use initiation were related to religion: Youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Mormonism were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.87), whereas youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Judaism were more likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.32).
The third top predictor was race: Black youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.32). This was followed by youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Islam who were also less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.25).
The research examined over 15 different religious categories, “so we really tried to be expansive,” noted Dr. Green.
It’s unclear why some religions appeared to have a protective impact when it comes to substance use initiation whereas others have the opposite effect. Future research could perhaps identify which components of religiosity affect substance use initiation. If so, these aspects could be developed and incorporated into prevention and intervention programs, said Dr. Green.
Next on the list of most important predictors was being a part of a household with an income of $12,000-$15,999; these youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.22).
Within the culture and environment domain, a history of detention or suspension was a top predictor of substance use initiation (coefficient, 0.20). Prenatal exposure to substance use was also a robust predictor in the physical health category (coefficient, 0.15).
Other predictors included: parents with less than a high school degree or GED (coefficient, -0.14), substance use availability (coefficient, 0.12), and age at baseline (coefficient, 0.12).
The study also showed that better cognitive functioning in selected domains (eg, cognitive control, attention, and language ability) is associated with a greater likelihood of substance use initiation.
Shaping Future Prevention
Applying these findings in clinical settings could help tailor prevention and early intervention efforts, said the authors. It might be prudent to allocate resources to collecting data related to self-, peer-, and familial-related factors, “which were more informative in predicting substance use initiation during late childhood and early adolescence in the present study,” they wrote.
Researchers will continue to track these children through to a 10-year follow-up, said Dr. Green. “I’m really curious to see if the factors we found when they were 12 and 13, such as those related to peers and family, still hold when they’re ages 17 and 18, because there’s going to be a huge amount of brain development that’s happening throughout this phase.”
The group that initiated substance use and the group that didn’t initiate substance use were not totally balanced, and sample sizes for some religious categories were small. Another study limitation was that the analytic approach didn’t account for multilevel data within the context of site and families.
Commenting on the findings, Kathleen Brady, MD, PhD, distinguished university professor and director, South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, said that the study is “critical and complex.” This, she said, is especially true as cannabis has become more accessible and potent, and as the federal government reportedly considers reclassifying it from a Schedule I drug (which includes highly dangerous, addictive substances with no medical use) to a Schedule III drug (which can be prescribed as a medication).
“The part that is the most frightening to me is the long-lasting effects that can happen when young people start using high-potency marijuana at an early age,” said Dr. Brady. “So, any information that we can give to parents, to teachers, to the public, and to doctors is important.”
She’s looking forward to getting more “incredibly important” information on substance use initiation as the study progresses and the teens get older.
The study received support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
Aside from sociodemographic parameters, risk factors for substance use initiation include prenatal exposure to substances, peer use of alcohol and nicotine, and problematic school behavior, among other things, the study showed.
The results show certain modifiable risk factors may play a role in preventing youth from starting to use substances, said study author ReJoyce Green, PhD, research assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
“If we’re designing, say, a prevention program or an early intervention program, these are things that could make a difference, so let’s make sure we’re bringing them into the conversation.”
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association American Psychiatric Association (APA) and published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.
Critical Risk Factors
Use of alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis often begins during adolescence. One recent survey showed that 23% of 13-year-olds reported using alcohol, 17% reported vaping nicotine, and 8% reported vaping cannabis. Other research links younger age at substance use initiation to a more rapid transition to substance use disorders and higher rates of psychiatric disorders.
Previous studies examining predictors of substance use initiation in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study dataset focused primarily on self-reported measures, but the current study also looked at models that include hormones and neurocognitive factors as well as neuroimaging.
This study included 6829, 9- and 10-year-olds from the ABCD Study who had never tried substances and were followed for 3 years.
A sophisticated statistical approach was used to examine 420 variables as predictors of substance use initiation. Initiation was defined as trying any nonprescribed substance by age 12 years. “That’s including a single sip of alcohol or puff of a cigarette,” said Dr. Green.
In addition to alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis, researchers looked at initiation of synthetic cannabinoids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and ketamine, among other substances.
Self-reported measures included demographic characteristics, self and peer involvement with substance use, parenting behaviors, mental and physical health, and culture and environmental factors.
The analytical approach used machine-learning algorithms to compare the ability of domains to identify the most critical risk factors. Magnitudes of coefficients were used to assess variable importance, with positive coefficients indicating greater likelihood of substance initiation and negative coefficients indicating lower likelihood of initiation.
By age 12 years, 14.4% of the children studied reported substance initiation. Alcohol was the substance most commonly initiated (365 individuals), followed by nicotine (94 individuals) and cannabis (40 individuals), with few or no children initiating other substances.
Both those who did and did not initiate substances were similarly aged, and most participants identified as White and non-Hispanic. But the substance-use group had a lower percentage of girls and higher percentage of White participants compared with the no-substance-use group.
The model with only self-reported data had similar accuracy in predicting substance use initiation (area under the curve [AUC], 0.67) as models that added resource-intensive measures such as neurocognitive tests and hormones (AUC, 0.67) and neuroimaging (AUC, 0.66).
Religious Predictors
The strongest predictors of substance use initiation were related to religion: Youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Mormonism were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.87), whereas youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Judaism were more likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.32).
The third top predictor was race: Black youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.32). This was followed by youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Islam who were also less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.25).
The research examined over 15 different religious categories, “so we really tried to be expansive,” noted Dr. Green.
It’s unclear why some religions appeared to have a protective impact when it comes to substance use initiation whereas others have the opposite effect. Future research could perhaps identify which components of religiosity affect substance use initiation. If so, these aspects could be developed and incorporated into prevention and intervention programs, said Dr. Green.
Next on the list of most important predictors was being a part of a household with an income of $12,000-$15,999; these youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.22).
Within the culture and environment domain, a history of detention or suspension was a top predictor of substance use initiation (coefficient, 0.20). Prenatal exposure to substance use was also a robust predictor in the physical health category (coefficient, 0.15).
Other predictors included: parents with less than a high school degree or GED (coefficient, -0.14), substance use availability (coefficient, 0.12), and age at baseline (coefficient, 0.12).
The study also showed that better cognitive functioning in selected domains (eg, cognitive control, attention, and language ability) is associated with a greater likelihood of substance use initiation.
Shaping Future Prevention
Applying these findings in clinical settings could help tailor prevention and early intervention efforts, said the authors. It might be prudent to allocate resources to collecting data related to self-, peer-, and familial-related factors, “which were more informative in predicting substance use initiation during late childhood and early adolescence in the present study,” they wrote.
Researchers will continue to track these children through to a 10-year follow-up, said Dr. Green. “I’m really curious to see if the factors we found when they were 12 and 13, such as those related to peers and family, still hold when they’re ages 17 and 18, because there’s going to be a huge amount of brain development that’s happening throughout this phase.”
The group that initiated substance use and the group that didn’t initiate substance use were not totally balanced, and sample sizes for some religious categories were small. Another study limitation was that the analytic approach didn’t account for multilevel data within the context of site and families.
Commenting on the findings, Kathleen Brady, MD, PhD, distinguished university professor and director, South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, said that the study is “critical and complex.” This, she said, is especially true as cannabis has become more accessible and potent, and as the federal government reportedly considers reclassifying it from a Schedule I drug (which includes highly dangerous, addictive substances with no medical use) to a Schedule III drug (which can be prescribed as a medication).
“The part that is the most frightening to me is the long-lasting effects that can happen when young people start using high-potency marijuana at an early age,” said Dr. Brady. “So, any information that we can give to parents, to teachers, to the public, and to doctors is important.”
She’s looking forward to getting more “incredibly important” information on substance use initiation as the study progresses and the teens get older.
The study received support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM APA 2024
Jumpstart Your AI Learning: The Very Best Resources for Doctors
Like it or not, artificial intelligence (AI) is coming to medicine. For many physicians — maybe you — it’s already here.
More than a third of physicians use AI in their practice. And the vast majority of healthcare companies — 94%, according to Morgan Stanley — use some kind of AI machine learning.
“It’s incumbent on physicians, as well as physicians in training, to become familiar with at least the basics [of AI],” said internist Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
“Frankly, the people who are deciding whether to implement algorithms in our day-to-day lives are oftentimes not physicians,” noted Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of augmented and artificial intelligence at the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Philadelphia. Yet, physicians are most qualified to assess an AI tool’s usefulness in clinical practice.
That brings us to the best starting place for your AI education: Your own institution. Find out what AI tools your organization is implementing — and how you can influence them.
“Getting involved with our hospital data governance is the best way not only to learn practically what these AI tools do but also to influence the development process in positive ways,” Dr. Parikh said.
From there, consider the following resources to enhance your AI knowledge.
Get a Lay of the Land: Free Primers
Many clinical societies and interest groups have put out AI primers, an easy way to get a broad overview of the technology. The following were recommended or developed by the experts we spoke to, and all are free:
- The American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) framework for advancing healthcare AI lays out actionable guidance. Ask three key questions, the AMA recommends: Does it work? Does it work for my patients? Does it improve health outcomes?
- The Coalition for Health AI’s Blueprint for Trustworthy AI Implementation Guidance and Assurance for Healthcare provides a high-level summary of how to evaluate AI in healthcare, plus steps for implementing it. AI systems should be useful, safe, accountable, explainable, fair, and secure, the report asserted.
- The National Academy of Medicine’s draft code of conduct for AI in healthcare proposes core principles and commitments. These “reflect simple guideposts to guide and gauge behavior in a complex system and provide a starting point for real-time decision-making,” the report said.
- Health AI Partnership — a collaboration of Duke Health and Microsoft — outlines eight key decision points to consider at any stage of AI implementation, whether you’re still planning how to use it or you’ve started but want to improve it. The site also provides a breakdown of standards by regulatory agencies, organizations, and oversight bodies — so you can make sure your practices align with their guidance.
Make the Most of Conferences
Next time you’re at a conference, check the agenda for sessions on AI. “For someone who’s interested in this, I would be looking for content in my next national meeting because, undoubtedly, it’s going to be there,” said Dr. DeCamp. In a fast-moving field like AI, it’s a great way to get fresh, up-to-the-moment insights.
Listen to This Podcast
The New England Journal of Medicine’s free monthly podcast AI Grand Rounds is made for researchers and clinicians. Available on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube, the pod is good for “someone who’s looking to see both where the field is going [and to hear] a retrospective on big-name papers,” said Dr. Parikh . Episodes run for about an hour.
To learn about the challenges of applying AI to biology: Listen to Daphne Koller, PhD, founder of AI-driven drug discovery and development company insitro. For insights on the potential of AI in medicine, tune into the one with Eric Horvitz, MD, PhD, Microsoft’s chief scientific officer.
Consider a Class
Look for courses that focus on AI applications in clinical practice rather than a deep dive into theory. (You need to understand how these tools will influence your work, not the intricacies of large language model development.) Be wary of corporate-funded training that centers on one product , which could present conflicts of interest, said Dr. DeCamp. See the chart for courses that meet these criteria.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Like it or not, artificial intelligence (AI) is coming to medicine. For many physicians — maybe you — it’s already here.
More than a third of physicians use AI in their practice. And the vast majority of healthcare companies — 94%, according to Morgan Stanley — use some kind of AI machine learning.
“It’s incumbent on physicians, as well as physicians in training, to become familiar with at least the basics [of AI],” said internist Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
“Frankly, the people who are deciding whether to implement algorithms in our day-to-day lives are oftentimes not physicians,” noted Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of augmented and artificial intelligence at the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Philadelphia. Yet, physicians are most qualified to assess an AI tool’s usefulness in clinical practice.
That brings us to the best starting place for your AI education: Your own institution. Find out what AI tools your organization is implementing — and how you can influence them.
“Getting involved with our hospital data governance is the best way not only to learn practically what these AI tools do but also to influence the development process in positive ways,” Dr. Parikh said.
From there, consider the following resources to enhance your AI knowledge.
Get a Lay of the Land: Free Primers
Many clinical societies and interest groups have put out AI primers, an easy way to get a broad overview of the technology. The following were recommended or developed by the experts we spoke to, and all are free:
- The American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) framework for advancing healthcare AI lays out actionable guidance. Ask three key questions, the AMA recommends: Does it work? Does it work for my patients? Does it improve health outcomes?
- The Coalition for Health AI’s Blueprint for Trustworthy AI Implementation Guidance and Assurance for Healthcare provides a high-level summary of how to evaluate AI in healthcare, plus steps for implementing it. AI systems should be useful, safe, accountable, explainable, fair, and secure, the report asserted.
- The National Academy of Medicine’s draft code of conduct for AI in healthcare proposes core principles and commitments. These “reflect simple guideposts to guide and gauge behavior in a complex system and provide a starting point for real-time decision-making,” the report said.
- Health AI Partnership — a collaboration of Duke Health and Microsoft — outlines eight key decision points to consider at any stage of AI implementation, whether you’re still planning how to use it or you’ve started but want to improve it. The site also provides a breakdown of standards by regulatory agencies, organizations, and oversight bodies — so you can make sure your practices align with their guidance.
Make the Most of Conferences
Next time you’re at a conference, check the agenda for sessions on AI. “For someone who’s interested in this, I would be looking for content in my next national meeting because, undoubtedly, it’s going to be there,” said Dr. DeCamp. In a fast-moving field like AI, it’s a great way to get fresh, up-to-the-moment insights.
Listen to This Podcast
The New England Journal of Medicine’s free monthly podcast AI Grand Rounds is made for researchers and clinicians. Available on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube, the pod is good for “someone who’s looking to see both where the field is going [and to hear] a retrospective on big-name papers,” said Dr. Parikh . Episodes run for about an hour.
To learn about the challenges of applying AI to biology: Listen to Daphne Koller, PhD, founder of AI-driven drug discovery and development company insitro. For insights on the potential of AI in medicine, tune into the one with Eric Horvitz, MD, PhD, Microsoft’s chief scientific officer.
Consider a Class
Look for courses that focus on AI applications in clinical practice rather than a deep dive into theory. (You need to understand how these tools will influence your work, not the intricacies of large language model development.) Be wary of corporate-funded training that centers on one product , which could present conflicts of interest, said Dr. DeCamp. See the chart for courses that meet these criteria.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Like it or not, artificial intelligence (AI) is coming to medicine. For many physicians — maybe you — it’s already here.
More than a third of physicians use AI in their practice. And the vast majority of healthcare companies — 94%, according to Morgan Stanley — use some kind of AI machine learning.
“It’s incumbent on physicians, as well as physicians in training, to become familiar with at least the basics [of AI],” said internist Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
“Frankly, the people who are deciding whether to implement algorithms in our day-to-day lives are oftentimes not physicians,” noted Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of augmented and artificial intelligence at the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Philadelphia. Yet, physicians are most qualified to assess an AI tool’s usefulness in clinical practice.
That brings us to the best starting place for your AI education: Your own institution. Find out what AI tools your organization is implementing — and how you can influence them.
“Getting involved with our hospital data governance is the best way not only to learn practically what these AI tools do but also to influence the development process in positive ways,” Dr. Parikh said.
From there, consider the following resources to enhance your AI knowledge.
Get a Lay of the Land: Free Primers
Many clinical societies and interest groups have put out AI primers, an easy way to get a broad overview of the technology. The following were recommended or developed by the experts we spoke to, and all are free:
- The American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) framework for advancing healthcare AI lays out actionable guidance. Ask three key questions, the AMA recommends: Does it work? Does it work for my patients? Does it improve health outcomes?
- The Coalition for Health AI’s Blueprint for Trustworthy AI Implementation Guidance and Assurance for Healthcare provides a high-level summary of how to evaluate AI in healthcare, plus steps for implementing it. AI systems should be useful, safe, accountable, explainable, fair, and secure, the report asserted.
- The National Academy of Medicine’s draft code of conduct for AI in healthcare proposes core principles and commitments. These “reflect simple guideposts to guide and gauge behavior in a complex system and provide a starting point for real-time decision-making,” the report said.
- Health AI Partnership — a collaboration of Duke Health and Microsoft — outlines eight key decision points to consider at any stage of AI implementation, whether you’re still planning how to use it or you’ve started but want to improve it. The site also provides a breakdown of standards by regulatory agencies, organizations, and oversight bodies — so you can make sure your practices align with their guidance.
Make the Most of Conferences
Next time you’re at a conference, check the agenda for sessions on AI. “For someone who’s interested in this, I would be looking for content in my next national meeting because, undoubtedly, it’s going to be there,” said Dr. DeCamp. In a fast-moving field like AI, it’s a great way to get fresh, up-to-the-moment insights.
Listen to This Podcast
The New England Journal of Medicine’s free monthly podcast AI Grand Rounds is made for researchers and clinicians. Available on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube, the pod is good for “someone who’s looking to see both where the field is going [and to hear] a retrospective on big-name papers,” said Dr. Parikh . Episodes run for about an hour.
To learn about the challenges of applying AI to biology: Listen to Daphne Koller, PhD, founder of AI-driven drug discovery and development company insitro. For insights on the potential of AI in medicine, tune into the one with Eric Horvitz, MD, PhD, Microsoft’s chief scientific officer.
Consider a Class
Look for courses that focus on AI applications in clinical practice rather than a deep dive into theory. (You need to understand how these tools will influence your work, not the intricacies of large language model development.) Be wary of corporate-funded training that centers on one product , which could present conflicts of interest, said Dr. DeCamp. See the chart for courses that meet these criteria.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PCP Compensation, Part 2
In my last column, I began to explore the factors affecting the compensation of primary care providers (PCPs). I described two apparent economic paradoxes. First, while most healthcare systems consider their primary care segments as loss leaders, they continue to seek and hire more PCPs. The second is while PCPs are in short supply, most of them feel that they are underpaid. Supply and demand doesn’t seem to be making them more valuable in the economic sense. The explanations for these nonintuitive observations are first, healthcare systems need the volume of patients stored in the practices of even unprofitable primary care physicians to feed the high-profit specialties in their businesses. Second, there is a limit to how large a gap between revenue and overhead the systems can accept for their primary care practices. Not surprisingly, this means that system administrators must continue to nudge those PCP practices closer toward profitability, usually by demanding higher productivity.
As I did in my last letter, I will continue to lean on a discussion for PCP compensation by a large international management consulting firm I found on the internet. I am not condoning the consultant’s advice, but merely using it as a scaffolding on which to hang the rather squishy topics of time, clinical quality, and patient satisfaction. I only intend to ask questions, and I promise no answers.
First, let me make it clear that I am defining PCPs as providers who are on a performance-based pathway, which is by far the most prevalent model. A fixed-salary arrangement hasn’t made sense to me since I was a 17-year-old lifeguard paid by the hour for sitting by a pool. Had I been paid by the rescue, I would have finished the summer empty handed. A fixed salary provided me a sense of security, but it offered no path for advancement and was boring as hell. The primary care provider I am talking about has an interest in developing relationships with his/her patients, building a practice, and offering some degree of continuity. In other words, I am not considering providers working in walk-in clinics as PCPs.
Size Matters
My high-powered management consultant is recommending to his healthcare system management clients that they emphasize panel size component as they craft their compensation packages for PCPs. Maybe even to the point of giving it more weight than the productivity piece. This, of course, makes perfect business sense if the primary value of a PCP to the system lies in the patients he/she brings into the system.
What does this emphasis on size mean for you as a provider? If your boss is following my consultant’s advice, then you would want to be growing your panel size to improve your compensation. You could do this by a marketing plan that makes you more popular. But, I can hear you muttering that you never wanted to be a contestant in a popularity contest. Although I must say that historically this was a fact of life in any community when new providers came to town.
A provider can choose his/her own definition of popularity. You can let it be known that you are a liberal prescription writer and fill your practice with drug-seeking patients. Or you could promote customer-friendly schedules and behaviors in your office staff. And, of course, you can simply exude an aura of caring, which has always been an effective practice-building tool.
On the other hand, you may believe that you have more patients than you can handle. You may fear that growing your practice runs the risk of putting the quality of your patients’ care and your own physical and mental health at risk.
Theoretically, you could keep your panel size unchanged and increase your productivity to enhance your value and therefore your compensation. In the next part of this miniseries we’ll look at the stumbling blocks that can make increasing productivity difficult.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
In my last column, I began to explore the factors affecting the compensation of primary care providers (PCPs). I described two apparent economic paradoxes. First, while most healthcare systems consider their primary care segments as loss leaders, they continue to seek and hire more PCPs. The second is while PCPs are in short supply, most of them feel that they are underpaid. Supply and demand doesn’t seem to be making them more valuable in the economic sense. The explanations for these nonintuitive observations are first, healthcare systems need the volume of patients stored in the practices of even unprofitable primary care physicians to feed the high-profit specialties in their businesses. Second, there is a limit to how large a gap between revenue and overhead the systems can accept for their primary care practices. Not surprisingly, this means that system administrators must continue to nudge those PCP practices closer toward profitability, usually by demanding higher productivity.
As I did in my last letter, I will continue to lean on a discussion for PCP compensation by a large international management consulting firm I found on the internet. I am not condoning the consultant’s advice, but merely using it as a scaffolding on which to hang the rather squishy topics of time, clinical quality, and patient satisfaction. I only intend to ask questions, and I promise no answers.
First, let me make it clear that I am defining PCPs as providers who are on a performance-based pathway, which is by far the most prevalent model. A fixed-salary arrangement hasn’t made sense to me since I was a 17-year-old lifeguard paid by the hour for sitting by a pool. Had I been paid by the rescue, I would have finished the summer empty handed. A fixed salary provided me a sense of security, but it offered no path for advancement and was boring as hell. The primary care provider I am talking about has an interest in developing relationships with his/her patients, building a practice, and offering some degree of continuity. In other words, I am not considering providers working in walk-in clinics as PCPs.
Size Matters
My high-powered management consultant is recommending to his healthcare system management clients that they emphasize panel size component as they craft their compensation packages for PCPs. Maybe even to the point of giving it more weight than the productivity piece. This, of course, makes perfect business sense if the primary value of a PCP to the system lies in the patients he/she brings into the system.
What does this emphasis on size mean for you as a provider? If your boss is following my consultant’s advice, then you would want to be growing your panel size to improve your compensation. You could do this by a marketing plan that makes you more popular. But, I can hear you muttering that you never wanted to be a contestant in a popularity contest. Although I must say that historically this was a fact of life in any community when new providers came to town.
A provider can choose his/her own definition of popularity. You can let it be known that you are a liberal prescription writer and fill your practice with drug-seeking patients. Or you could promote customer-friendly schedules and behaviors in your office staff. And, of course, you can simply exude an aura of caring, which has always been an effective practice-building tool.
On the other hand, you may believe that you have more patients than you can handle. You may fear that growing your practice runs the risk of putting the quality of your patients’ care and your own physical and mental health at risk.
Theoretically, you could keep your panel size unchanged and increase your productivity to enhance your value and therefore your compensation. In the next part of this miniseries we’ll look at the stumbling blocks that can make increasing productivity difficult.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
In my last column, I began to explore the factors affecting the compensation of primary care providers (PCPs). I described two apparent economic paradoxes. First, while most healthcare systems consider their primary care segments as loss leaders, they continue to seek and hire more PCPs. The second is while PCPs are in short supply, most of them feel that they are underpaid. Supply and demand doesn’t seem to be making them more valuable in the economic sense. The explanations for these nonintuitive observations are first, healthcare systems need the volume of patients stored in the practices of even unprofitable primary care physicians to feed the high-profit specialties in their businesses. Second, there is a limit to how large a gap between revenue and overhead the systems can accept for their primary care practices. Not surprisingly, this means that system administrators must continue to nudge those PCP practices closer toward profitability, usually by demanding higher productivity.
As I did in my last letter, I will continue to lean on a discussion for PCP compensation by a large international management consulting firm I found on the internet. I am not condoning the consultant’s advice, but merely using it as a scaffolding on which to hang the rather squishy topics of time, clinical quality, and patient satisfaction. I only intend to ask questions, and I promise no answers.
First, let me make it clear that I am defining PCPs as providers who are on a performance-based pathway, which is by far the most prevalent model. A fixed-salary arrangement hasn’t made sense to me since I was a 17-year-old lifeguard paid by the hour for sitting by a pool. Had I been paid by the rescue, I would have finished the summer empty handed. A fixed salary provided me a sense of security, but it offered no path for advancement and was boring as hell. The primary care provider I am talking about has an interest in developing relationships with his/her patients, building a practice, and offering some degree of continuity. In other words, I am not considering providers working in walk-in clinics as PCPs.
Size Matters
My high-powered management consultant is recommending to his healthcare system management clients that they emphasize panel size component as they craft their compensation packages for PCPs. Maybe even to the point of giving it more weight than the productivity piece. This, of course, makes perfect business sense if the primary value of a PCP to the system lies in the patients he/she brings into the system.
What does this emphasis on size mean for you as a provider? If your boss is following my consultant’s advice, then you would want to be growing your panel size to improve your compensation. You could do this by a marketing plan that makes you more popular. But, I can hear you muttering that you never wanted to be a contestant in a popularity contest. Although I must say that historically this was a fact of life in any community when new providers came to town.
A provider can choose his/her own definition of popularity. You can let it be known that you are a liberal prescription writer and fill your practice with drug-seeking patients. Or you could promote customer-friendly schedules and behaviors in your office staff. And, of course, you can simply exude an aura of caring, which has always been an effective practice-building tool.
On the other hand, you may believe that you have more patients than you can handle. You may fear that growing your practice runs the risk of putting the quality of your patients’ care and your own physical and mental health at risk.
Theoretically, you could keep your panel size unchanged and increase your productivity to enhance your value and therefore your compensation. In the next part of this miniseries we’ll look at the stumbling blocks that can make increasing productivity difficult.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
COVID Vaccines and New-Onset Seizures: New Data
There is no association between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and the risk for new-onset seizure, data from a new meta-analysis of six randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) showed.
Results of the pooled analysis that included 63,500 individuals vaccinated with SARS-CoV-2 and 55,000 who received a placebo vaccine showed there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to new-onset seizures at 28- or 43-day follow-up.
Regarding new-onset seizures in the general population, there was no statistically significant difference in risk for seizure incidence among vaccinated individuals vs placebo recipients, according to our meta-analysis, wrote the investigators, led by Ali Rafati, MD, MPH, Iran University of Medical Sciences in Tehran.
The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
Mixed Results
Results from previous research have been mixed regarding the link between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and new-onset seizures, with some showing an association.
To learn more about the possible association between the vaccines and new-onset seizures, the researchers conducted a literature review and identified six RCTs that measured adverse events following SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations (including messenger RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus) vs placebo or other vaccines.
While five of the studies defined new-onset seizures according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, trial investigators in the sixth RCT assessed and determined new-onset seizures in participants.
Participants received two vaccinations 28 days apart in five RCTs and only one vaccine in the sixth trial.
The research team searched the data for new-onset seizure in the 28 days following one or both COVID vaccinations.
No Link Found
After comparing the incidence of new-onset seizure between the 63,500 vaccine (nine new-onset seizures, 0.014%) and 55,000 placebo recipients (one new-onset seizure, 0.002%), investigators found no significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio [OR], 2.70; 95% CI, 0.76-9.57; P = .12)
Investigators also sliced the data several ways to see if it would yield different results. When they analyzed data by vaccine platform (viral vector) and age group (children), they didn’t observe significant differences in new-onset data.
The researchers also searched for data beyond the month following the injection to encompass the entire blinded phase, so they analyzed the results of three RCTs that reported adverse events up to 162 days after the vaccine.
After pooling the results from the three studies, investigators found no statistical difference between the vaccine and placebo groups in terms of the new-onset seizure (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.86%-3.23; P > .99)
Study limitations included the missing information on vaccine doses or risk factors for the development of seizures. Also, the RCTs included in the meta-analysis were conducted at different times, so the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may have differed in their composition and efficacy.
“The global vaccination drive against SARS-CoV-2 has been a monumental effort in combating the pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations that are now available appear safe and appropriate,” the authors wrote.
There were no study funding sources or disclosures reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
There is no association between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and the risk for new-onset seizure, data from a new meta-analysis of six randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) showed.
Results of the pooled analysis that included 63,500 individuals vaccinated with SARS-CoV-2 and 55,000 who received a placebo vaccine showed there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to new-onset seizures at 28- or 43-day follow-up.
Regarding new-onset seizures in the general population, there was no statistically significant difference in risk for seizure incidence among vaccinated individuals vs placebo recipients, according to our meta-analysis, wrote the investigators, led by Ali Rafati, MD, MPH, Iran University of Medical Sciences in Tehran.
The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
Mixed Results
Results from previous research have been mixed regarding the link between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and new-onset seizures, with some showing an association.
To learn more about the possible association between the vaccines and new-onset seizures, the researchers conducted a literature review and identified six RCTs that measured adverse events following SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations (including messenger RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus) vs placebo or other vaccines.
While five of the studies defined new-onset seizures according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, trial investigators in the sixth RCT assessed and determined new-onset seizures in participants.
Participants received two vaccinations 28 days apart in five RCTs and only one vaccine in the sixth trial.
The research team searched the data for new-onset seizure in the 28 days following one or both COVID vaccinations.
No Link Found
After comparing the incidence of new-onset seizure between the 63,500 vaccine (nine new-onset seizures, 0.014%) and 55,000 placebo recipients (one new-onset seizure, 0.002%), investigators found no significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio [OR], 2.70; 95% CI, 0.76-9.57; P = .12)
Investigators also sliced the data several ways to see if it would yield different results. When they analyzed data by vaccine platform (viral vector) and age group (children), they didn’t observe significant differences in new-onset data.
The researchers also searched for data beyond the month following the injection to encompass the entire blinded phase, so they analyzed the results of three RCTs that reported adverse events up to 162 days after the vaccine.
After pooling the results from the three studies, investigators found no statistical difference between the vaccine and placebo groups in terms of the new-onset seizure (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.86%-3.23; P > .99)
Study limitations included the missing information on vaccine doses or risk factors for the development of seizures. Also, the RCTs included in the meta-analysis were conducted at different times, so the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may have differed in their composition and efficacy.
“The global vaccination drive against SARS-CoV-2 has been a monumental effort in combating the pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations that are now available appear safe and appropriate,” the authors wrote.
There were no study funding sources or disclosures reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
There is no association between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and the risk for new-onset seizure, data from a new meta-analysis of six randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) showed.
Results of the pooled analysis that included 63,500 individuals vaccinated with SARS-CoV-2 and 55,000 who received a placebo vaccine showed there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to new-onset seizures at 28- or 43-day follow-up.
Regarding new-onset seizures in the general population, there was no statistically significant difference in risk for seizure incidence among vaccinated individuals vs placebo recipients, according to our meta-analysis, wrote the investigators, led by Ali Rafati, MD, MPH, Iran University of Medical Sciences in Tehran.
The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
Mixed Results
Results from previous research have been mixed regarding the link between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and new-onset seizures, with some showing an association.
To learn more about the possible association between the vaccines and new-onset seizures, the researchers conducted a literature review and identified six RCTs that measured adverse events following SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations (including messenger RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus) vs placebo or other vaccines.
While five of the studies defined new-onset seizures according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, trial investigators in the sixth RCT assessed and determined new-onset seizures in participants.
Participants received two vaccinations 28 days apart in five RCTs and only one vaccine in the sixth trial.
The research team searched the data for new-onset seizure in the 28 days following one or both COVID vaccinations.
No Link Found
After comparing the incidence of new-onset seizure between the 63,500 vaccine (nine new-onset seizures, 0.014%) and 55,000 placebo recipients (one new-onset seizure, 0.002%), investigators found no significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio [OR], 2.70; 95% CI, 0.76-9.57; P = .12)
Investigators also sliced the data several ways to see if it would yield different results. When they analyzed data by vaccine platform (viral vector) and age group (children), they didn’t observe significant differences in new-onset data.
The researchers also searched for data beyond the month following the injection to encompass the entire blinded phase, so they analyzed the results of three RCTs that reported adverse events up to 162 days after the vaccine.
After pooling the results from the three studies, investigators found no statistical difference between the vaccine and placebo groups in terms of the new-onset seizure (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.86%-3.23; P > .99)
Study limitations included the missing information on vaccine doses or risk factors for the development of seizures. Also, the RCTs included in the meta-analysis were conducted at different times, so the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may have differed in their composition and efficacy.
“The global vaccination drive against SARS-CoV-2 has been a monumental effort in combating the pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations that are now available appear safe and appropriate,” the authors wrote.
There were no study funding sources or disclosures reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A 6-Year-Old Female Presents With a Bruise-Like Lesion on the Lip, Tongue, and Chin Area Present Since Birth
Diagnosis: Venous Malformation
Although present at birth, they are not always clinically evident early in life. They also tend to grow with the child without spontaneous regression, causing potential cosmetic concerns or complications from impingement on surrounding tissue.
Venous malformations appear with a bluish color appearing beneath the skin and can vary significantly in size and severity. Venous malformations are compressible and characterized by low to stagnant blood flow, which can spontaneously thrombose. Clinically, this may cause pain, swelling, skin changes, tissue and limb overgrowth, or functional impairment depending on location and size.
Venous malformations result from disorganized angiogenesis secondary to sporadic mutations in somatic cells. The most common implicated gene is TEK, a receptor tyrosine kinase. PIK3CA has also been involved. Both genes are involved in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, which regulates cell growth, proliferation, and angiogenesis. In venous endothelial cells, abnormal angiogenesis and vessel maturation may lead to venous malformation formation. Dysplastic vessels frequently separate from normal veins but may be contiguous with the deep venous system.
Diagnosis involves clinical history and physical examination. Imaging with ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be utilized. While ultrasound may be preferred for superficial venous malformations, MRI or MRI with MR angiography (MRA) is the preferred method for venous malformation assessment. Genetic testing may be appropriate for complex malformations, as classification of lesions by underlying mutation may allow targeted therapy.
This patient’s past MRI and MRA findings were consistent with a venous malformation.
Treatment
Venous malformations rarely regress spontaneously. Treatment is required if venous malformations are symptomatic, which may include pain, swelling, deformity, thrombosis, or interference with daily activities of living. Treatment plans require consideration of patient goals of care. The main categories of therapy are embolization/sclerotherapy, surgical resection, and molecular targeted therapy.
Sclerotherapy is a well-tolerated and efficacious first-line therapy. It can be used as either nonsurgical curative therapy or preoperative adjunct therapy to minimize blood loss before surgical resection. While surgical resection may cause scarring, multimodal approaches with sclerotherapy or laser therapy can decrease complications. Molecular therapies aim to reduce vascular proliferation and symptoms. Referral to hematology/oncology for evaluation and consideration of chemotherapeutic agents may be required. Sirolimus has been shown in mice models to inhibit an endothelial cell tyrosine kinase receptor that plays a role in venous malformation growth. Multiple studies have proved its efficacy in managing complicated vascular anomalies, including venous malformations. Alpelisib is an inhibitor of PI3KCA, which is part of the pathway that contributes to venous malformation formation. Dactolisib, a dual inhibitor of the PI3KA and mTOR pathways, and rebastinib, a TEK inhibitor, are being investigated.
Differential Diagnoses
The differential diagnosis includes dermal melanocytosis, nevus of Ota, hemangioma of infancy, and ashy dermatosis. In addition, venous malformations can be part of more complex vascular malformations.
Dermal melanocytosis, also known as Mongolian spots, are blue-gray patches of discoloration on the skin that appear at birth or shortly after. They result from the arrest of dermal melanocytes in the dermis during fetal life and tissue modeling. They are commonly observed in those of Asian or African descent with darker skin types. Most often, they are located in the lumbar or sacral-gluteal region. Unlike venous malformations, they are benign and do not involve vascular abnormalities. They typically fade over time.
Nevus of Ota is a benign congenital condition that presents with blue-gray or brown patches of pigmentation on the skin around the eyes, cheeks, and forehead. They are dermal melanocytes with a speckled instead of uniform appearance. Nevus of Ota primarily affects individuals of Asian descent and typically presents in the trigeminal nerve distribution region. Treatment can be done to minimize deformity, generally with pigmented laser surgery.
Hemangiomas of infancy are common benign tumors of infancy caused by endothelial cell proliferation. They are characterized by rapid growth followed by spontaneous involution within the first year of life and for several years. Hemangiomas can be superficial, deep, or mixed with features of both superficial and deep. Superficial hemangiomas present as raised, lobulated, and bright red while deep hemangiomas present as a bluish-hued nodule, plaque, or tumor. They are diagnosed clinically but skin biopsies and imaging can confirm the suspected diagnosis. While hemangiomas may self-resolve, complicated hemangiomas can be treated with topical timolol, oral propranolol, topical and intralesional corticosteroids, pulsed-dye laser, and surgical resection.
Ashy dermatosis is a term for asymptomatic, gray-blue or ashy patches distributed symmetrically on the trunk, head, neck, and upper extremities. It primarily affects individuals with darker skin types (Fitzpatrick III-V), and is more common in patients with Hispanic, Asian, or African backgrounds. The direct cause of ashy dermatosis is unknown but it is thought to be linked to drug ingestion, genetics, infection, and immune-mediated mechanisms. The general treatment includes topical corticosteroids, clofazimine, topical calcineurin inhibitors, oral dapsone, phototherapy, topical retinoids, or isotretinoin to reduce inflammation and pigmentation.
Danny Lee and Samuel Le serve as research fellows and Jolina Bui as research associate in the Pediatric Dermatology Division of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is Distinguished Professor of Dermatology and Pediatrics and Vice-Chair of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.
Suggested Reading
Agarwal P, Patel BC. Nevus of Ota and Ito. [Updated 2023 Jul 10]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; 2024.
Dompmartin A et al. The VASCERN-VASCA Working Group Diagnostic and Management Pathways for Venous Malformations. J Vasc Anom (Phila). 2023 Mar 23;4(2):e064.
Dompmartin A et al. Venous malformation: Update on aetiopathogenesis, diagnosis and management. Phlebology. 2010 Oct;25(5):224-235.
Gupta D, Thappa DM. Mongolian spots. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2013 Jul-Aug;79(4):469-478.
Krowchuk DP et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Infantile Hemangiomas. Pediatrics. 2019 Jan;143(1):e20183475.
Nguyen K, Khachemoune A. Ashy dermatosis: A review. Dermatol Online J. 2019 May 15;25(5):13030/qt44f462s8.
Patel ND, Chong AT et al. Venous Malformations. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2022 Dec 20;39(5):498-507.
Diagnosis: Venous Malformation
Although present at birth, they are not always clinically evident early in life. They also tend to grow with the child without spontaneous regression, causing potential cosmetic concerns or complications from impingement on surrounding tissue.
Venous malformations appear with a bluish color appearing beneath the skin and can vary significantly in size and severity. Venous malformations are compressible and characterized by low to stagnant blood flow, which can spontaneously thrombose. Clinically, this may cause pain, swelling, skin changes, tissue and limb overgrowth, or functional impairment depending on location and size.
Venous malformations result from disorganized angiogenesis secondary to sporadic mutations in somatic cells. The most common implicated gene is TEK, a receptor tyrosine kinase. PIK3CA has also been involved. Both genes are involved in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, which regulates cell growth, proliferation, and angiogenesis. In venous endothelial cells, abnormal angiogenesis and vessel maturation may lead to venous malformation formation. Dysplastic vessels frequently separate from normal veins but may be contiguous with the deep venous system.
Diagnosis involves clinical history and physical examination. Imaging with ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be utilized. While ultrasound may be preferred for superficial venous malformations, MRI or MRI with MR angiography (MRA) is the preferred method for venous malformation assessment. Genetic testing may be appropriate for complex malformations, as classification of lesions by underlying mutation may allow targeted therapy.
This patient’s past MRI and MRA findings were consistent with a venous malformation.
Treatment
Venous malformations rarely regress spontaneously. Treatment is required if venous malformations are symptomatic, which may include pain, swelling, deformity, thrombosis, or interference with daily activities of living. Treatment plans require consideration of patient goals of care. The main categories of therapy are embolization/sclerotherapy, surgical resection, and molecular targeted therapy.
Sclerotherapy is a well-tolerated and efficacious first-line therapy. It can be used as either nonsurgical curative therapy or preoperative adjunct therapy to minimize blood loss before surgical resection. While surgical resection may cause scarring, multimodal approaches with sclerotherapy or laser therapy can decrease complications. Molecular therapies aim to reduce vascular proliferation and symptoms. Referral to hematology/oncology for evaluation and consideration of chemotherapeutic agents may be required. Sirolimus has been shown in mice models to inhibit an endothelial cell tyrosine kinase receptor that plays a role in venous malformation growth. Multiple studies have proved its efficacy in managing complicated vascular anomalies, including venous malformations. Alpelisib is an inhibitor of PI3KCA, which is part of the pathway that contributes to venous malformation formation. Dactolisib, a dual inhibitor of the PI3KA and mTOR pathways, and rebastinib, a TEK inhibitor, are being investigated.
Differential Diagnoses
The differential diagnosis includes dermal melanocytosis, nevus of Ota, hemangioma of infancy, and ashy dermatosis. In addition, venous malformations can be part of more complex vascular malformations.
Dermal melanocytosis, also known as Mongolian spots, are blue-gray patches of discoloration on the skin that appear at birth or shortly after. They result from the arrest of dermal melanocytes in the dermis during fetal life and tissue modeling. They are commonly observed in those of Asian or African descent with darker skin types. Most often, they are located in the lumbar or sacral-gluteal region. Unlike venous malformations, they are benign and do not involve vascular abnormalities. They typically fade over time.
Nevus of Ota is a benign congenital condition that presents with blue-gray or brown patches of pigmentation on the skin around the eyes, cheeks, and forehead. They are dermal melanocytes with a speckled instead of uniform appearance. Nevus of Ota primarily affects individuals of Asian descent and typically presents in the trigeminal nerve distribution region. Treatment can be done to minimize deformity, generally with pigmented laser surgery.
Hemangiomas of infancy are common benign tumors of infancy caused by endothelial cell proliferation. They are characterized by rapid growth followed by spontaneous involution within the first year of life and for several years. Hemangiomas can be superficial, deep, or mixed with features of both superficial and deep. Superficial hemangiomas present as raised, lobulated, and bright red while deep hemangiomas present as a bluish-hued nodule, plaque, or tumor. They are diagnosed clinically but skin biopsies and imaging can confirm the suspected diagnosis. While hemangiomas may self-resolve, complicated hemangiomas can be treated with topical timolol, oral propranolol, topical and intralesional corticosteroids, pulsed-dye laser, and surgical resection.
Ashy dermatosis is a term for asymptomatic, gray-blue or ashy patches distributed symmetrically on the trunk, head, neck, and upper extremities. It primarily affects individuals with darker skin types (Fitzpatrick III-V), and is more common in patients with Hispanic, Asian, or African backgrounds. The direct cause of ashy dermatosis is unknown but it is thought to be linked to drug ingestion, genetics, infection, and immune-mediated mechanisms. The general treatment includes topical corticosteroids, clofazimine, topical calcineurin inhibitors, oral dapsone, phototherapy, topical retinoids, or isotretinoin to reduce inflammation and pigmentation.
Danny Lee and Samuel Le serve as research fellows and Jolina Bui as research associate in the Pediatric Dermatology Division of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is Distinguished Professor of Dermatology and Pediatrics and Vice-Chair of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.
Suggested Reading
Agarwal P, Patel BC. Nevus of Ota and Ito. [Updated 2023 Jul 10]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; 2024.
Dompmartin A et al. The VASCERN-VASCA Working Group Diagnostic and Management Pathways for Venous Malformations. J Vasc Anom (Phila). 2023 Mar 23;4(2):e064.
Dompmartin A et al. Venous malformation: Update on aetiopathogenesis, diagnosis and management. Phlebology. 2010 Oct;25(5):224-235.
Gupta D, Thappa DM. Mongolian spots. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2013 Jul-Aug;79(4):469-478.
Krowchuk DP et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Infantile Hemangiomas. Pediatrics. 2019 Jan;143(1):e20183475.
Nguyen K, Khachemoune A. Ashy dermatosis: A review. Dermatol Online J. 2019 May 15;25(5):13030/qt44f462s8.
Patel ND, Chong AT et al. Venous Malformations. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2022 Dec 20;39(5):498-507.
Diagnosis: Venous Malformation
Although present at birth, they are not always clinically evident early in life. They also tend to grow with the child without spontaneous regression, causing potential cosmetic concerns or complications from impingement on surrounding tissue.
Venous malformations appear with a bluish color appearing beneath the skin and can vary significantly in size and severity. Venous malformations are compressible and characterized by low to stagnant blood flow, which can spontaneously thrombose. Clinically, this may cause pain, swelling, skin changes, tissue and limb overgrowth, or functional impairment depending on location and size.
Venous malformations result from disorganized angiogenesis secondary to sporadic mutations in somatic cells. The most common implicated gene is TEK, a receptor tyrosine kinase. PIK3CA has also been involved. Both genes are involved in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, which regulates cell growth, proliferation, and angiogenesis. In venous endothelial cells, abnormal angiogenesis and vessel maturation may lead to venous malformation formation. Dysplastic vessels frequently separate from normal veins but may be contiguous with the deep venous system.
Diagnosis involves clinical history and physical examination. Imaging with ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be utilized. While ultrasound may be preferred for superficial venous malformations, MRI or MRI with MR angiography (MRA) is the preferred method for venous malformation assessment. Genetic testing may be appropriate for complex malformations, as classification of lesions by underlying mutation may allow targeted therapy.
This patient’s past MRI and MRA findings were consistent with a venous malformation.
Treatment
Venous malformations rarely regress spontaneously. Treatment is required if venous malformations are symptomatic, which may include pain, swelling, deformity, thrombosis, or interference with daily activities of living. Treatment plans require consideration of patient goals of care. The main categories of therapy are embolization/sclerotherapy, surgical resection, and molecular targeted therapy.
Sclerotherapy is a well-tolerated and efficacious first-line therapy. It can be used as either nonsurgical curative therapy or preoperative adjunct therapy to minimize blood loss before surgical resection. While surgical resection may cause scarring, multimodal approaches with sclerotherapy or laser therapy can decrease complications. Molecular therapies aim to reduce vascular proliferation and symptoms. Referral to hematology/oncology for evaluation and consideration of chemotherapeutic agents may be required. Sirolimus has been shown in mice models to inhibit an endothelial cell tyrosine kinase receptor that plays a role in venous malformation growth. Multiple studies have proved its efficacy in managing complicated vascular anomalies, including venous malformations. Alpelisib is an inhibitor of PI3KCA, which is part of the pathway that contributes to venous malformation formation. Dactolisib, a dual inhibitor of the PI3KA and mTOR pathways, and rebastinib, a TEK inhibitor, are being investigated.
Differential Diagnoses
The differential diagnosis includes dermal melanocytosis, nevus of Ota, hemangioma of infancy, and ashy dermatosis. In addition, venous malformations can be part of more complex vascular malformations.
Dermal melanocytosis, also known as Mongolian spots, are blue-gray patches of discoloration on the skin that appear at birth or shortly after. They result from the arrest of dermal melanocytes in the dermis during fetal life and tissue modeling. They are commonly observed in those of Asian or African descent with darker skin types. Most often, they are located in the lumbar or sacral-gluteal region. Unlike venous malformations, they are benign and do not involve vascular abnormalities. They typically fade over time.
Nevus of Ota is a benign congenital condition that presents with blue-gray or brown patches of pigmentation on the skin around the eyes, cheeks, and forehead. They are dermal melanocytes with a speckled instead of uniform appearance. Nevus of Ota primarily affects individuals of Asian descent and typically presents in the trigeminal nerve distribution region. Treatment can be done to minimize deformity, generally with pigmented laser surgery.
Hemangiomas of infancy are common benign tumors of infancy caused by endothelial cell proliferation. They are characterized by rapid growth followed by spontaneous involution within the first year of life and for several years. Hemangiomas can be superficial, deep, or mixed with features of both superficial and deep. Superficial hemangiomas present as raised, lobulated, and bright red while deep hemangiomas present as a bluish-hued nodule, plaque, or tumor. They are diagnosed clinically but skin biopsies and imaging can confirm the suspected diagnosis. While hemangiomas may self-resolve, complicated hemangiomas can be treated with topical timolol, oral propranolol, topical and intralesional corticosteroids, pulsed-dye laser, and surgical resection.
Ashy dermatosis is a term for asymptomatic, gray-blue or ashy patches distributed symmetrically on the trunk, head, neck, and upper extremities. It primarily affects individuals with darker skin types (Fitzpatrick III-V), and is more common in patients with Hispanic, Asian, or African backgrounds. The direct cause of ashy dermatosis is unknown but it is thought to be linked to drug ingestion, genetics, infection, and immune-mediated mechanisms. The general treatment includes topical corticosteroids, clofazimine, topical calcineurin inhibitors, oral dapsone, phototherapy, topical retinoids, or isotretinoin to reduce inflammation and pigmentation.
Danny Lee and Samuel Le serve as research fellows and Jolina Bui as research associate in the Pediatric Dermatology Division of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is Distinguished Professor of Dermatology and Pediatrics and Vice-Chair of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.
Suggested Reading
Agarwal P, Patel BC. Nevus of Ota and Ito. [Updated 2023 Jul 10]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; 2024.
Dompmartin A et al. The VASCERN-VASCA Working Group Diagnostic and Management Pathways for Venous Malformations. J Vasc Anom (Phila). 2023 Mar 23;4(2):e064.
Dompmartin A et al. Venous malformation: Update on aetiopathogenesis, diagnosis and management. Phlebology. 2010 Oct;25(5):224-235.
Gupta D, Thappa DM. Mongolian spots. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2013 Jul-Aug;79(4):469-478.
Krowchuk DP et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Infantile Hemangiomas. Pediatrics. 2019 Jan;143(1):e20183475.
Nguyen K, Khachemoune A. Ashy dermatosis: A review. Dermatol Online J. 2019 May 15;25(5):13030/qt44f462s8.
Patel ND, Chong AT et al. Venous Malformations. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2022 Dec 20;39(5):498-507.
A 6-year-old girl presents with a bruise-like lesion on the lip, tongue, and chin area present since birth. The family states that her tongue has been increasing in size and is painful. On physical exam, she presents with left lower mucosal lip fullness and an overlying violaceous hue extending into the oral mucosa and onto the left tongue. The left portion of the dorsal tongue displays an increased thickness and bluish discoloration and there is a pink, smooth papule on the left anterolateral tongue.
Pediatrician Credibility Remains Intact in Midst of Health Misinformation
TORONTO —
Despite acknowledging that health misinformation is on the rise, “nearly all the pediatricians we surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that their patients consider them a trusted information source,” reported Elizabeth A. Gottschlich, MA, a senior research associate with the American Academy of Pediatrics, Itasca, Illinois.
These data were generated by an ongoing cohort analysis called the Pediatricians Life and Career Experience Study (PLACES). Each year, two surveys are conducted with three groups of pediatricians in this cohort. They are defined by years in which they graduated from residency (2002-2004, 2009-2011, or 2016-2018).
While the longer survey of the two captures an array of issues regarding life and practice, the shorter “checkpoint” survey addresses a high-priority topic. In 2023, it was health misinformation. The data from this survey were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
About 40% of the 2706 pediatricians who completed this particular survey (just over 65% of the participants in PLACES) were general pediatricians, 50% were pediatric subspecialists, and 10% were hospitalists.
Almost all of the survey questions were answered on a five-point Likert scale.
A Matter of Trust
According to Ms. Gottschlich, approximately 80% of pediatricians agreed or strongly agreed that misinformation is a clinical issue for them. About one third of these strongly agreed, and only 6% disagreed.
There was also strong consensus that the problem has grown worse since the start of the COVID-19 epidemic. To this statement, 70% agreed or strongly agreed and 24% did not agree or disagree. Only 4% disagreed.
However, relatively few respondents appeared to be concerned about the ability of pediatricians to address the problem of misinformation, Ms. Gottschlich reported.
When asked to respond to the statement that the “community recognizes and uses pediatricians as trusted source for health information,” 87% agreed or strongly agreed. Of the remaining, 9% did not agree or disagree, leaving just 4% that disagreed or strongly disagreed.
For a similar but slightly different question, the consensus was even greater. To the statement “patients/families in your practice seek your input as a trusted source for health information,” 94% agreed or strongly agreed.
Encountering Misinformation
The survey went on to ask pediatricians about encounters with misinformation for seven specific issues. On the five-point Likert scale, the choices ranged from a few times per year to every day.
For reproductive health, gender-affirming care, and firearm injury prevention, about 80% of respondents answered at the very low end of the scale, meaning no more than about once per month. Encounters with misinformation was slightly greater with autism; nearly one third responded that they encountered misinformation once a week or more frequently.
For all three questions regarding vaccines, the proportions climbed substantially. Of these, the COVID-19 vaccine was the most common topic of misinformation, with more than half reporting that they addressed incorrect information once a week or more. Seven percent reported this occurs daily.
Nearly 40% of pediatricians responded that they dealt with misinformation about the HPV vaccine once per week or more, while 35% reported that they encountered misinformation this frequently about routine childhood vaccines. There was a small but not necessarily trivial proportion for each of these categories of vaccine who reported that they encountered misinformation on a daily basis.
When stratified by clinical focus, the encounters varied. For the COVID-19 vaccine, general pediatricians (67%) were far more likely to report addressing misinformation on a weekly or more frequent basis than hospitalists (39%) or subspecialists (46%). They were more than twice as likely to encounter misinformation about the HPV vaccine than hospitalists or pediatric subspecialists (46%, 17%, and 19%, respectively).
When stratified by urban, suburban, or rural practice areas, differences were relatively modest. Pediatricians in urban practices were less likely to face misinformation about HPV vaccine (29% vs 44% and 48% for suburban and rural areas, respectively), while pediatricians in rural practice were more likely to face misinformation about routine childhood vaccines (60% vs 33% and 35% for urban and suburban practices, respectively).
Differences were even narrower when misinformation encounters were compared among the West, Midwest, South, and Northeast. For the threshold of once per week or more commonly, misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine was less common in the South (50% vs 55%-58% in the other areas), while misinformation about routine childhood vaccines was more commonly encountered in the West (41% vs 32%-35% in the other areas).
A Growing Problem
The confidence among pediatricians that their knowledge is valued is reassuring, according to Ms. Gottschlich, who noted that the U.S. Surgeon General declared health misinformation a serious threat to public health in 2021, but the problem of misinformation is growing, according to several sources.
One of these sources, at least in regard to adolescent health, appears to be social media, according to a recently published review article in JAMA Pediatrics. The lead author of that article, Monica L. Wang, DSc, has dual academic appointments at the Boston University School of Public Health and Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. Asked for a comment on this issue, she suggested that it might not be enough to just respond to misinformation but rather might be better to develop a dialogue that will reveal misconceptions.
“Just as they screen for preventive issues like seat belt use, sunscreen, and safe sex practices, [pediatricians should integrate] questions about health misinformation into visits, which can be a natural and effective way to encourage dialogue, proactively share accurate information, and promote well-being,” she said.
Agreeing with the premise that pediatricians are a credible source of information for parents and children, Dr. Wang very much endorses the principle that “pediatricians can play a critical role in addressing health misinformation.”
Ms. Gottschlich and Dr. Wang report no potential conflicts of interest.
TORONTO —
Despite acknowledging that health misinformation is on the rise, “nearly all the pediatricians we surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that their patients consider them a trusted information source,” reported Elizabeth A. Gottschlich, MA, a senior research associate with the American Academy of Pediatrics, Itasca, Illinois.
These data were generated by an ongoing cohort analysis called the Pediatricians Life and Career Experience Study (PLACES). Each year, two surveys are conducted with three groups of pediatricians in this cohort. They are defined by years in which they graduated from residency (2002-2004, 2009-2011, or 2016-2018).
While the longer survey of the two captures an array of issues regarding life and practice, the shorter “checkpoint” survey addresses a high-priority topic. In 2023, it was health misinformation. The data from this survey were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
About 40% of the 2706 pediatricians who completed this particular survey (just over 65% of the participants in PLACES) were general pediatricians, 50% were pediatric subspecialists, and 10% were hospitalists.
Almost all of the survey questions were answered on a five-point Likert scale.
A Matter of Trust
According to Ms. Gottschlich, approximately 80% of pediatricians agreed or strongly agreed that misinformation is a clinical issue for them. About one third of these strongly agreed, and only 6% disagreed.
There was also strong consensus that the problem has grown worse since the start of the COVID-19 epidemic. To this statement, 70% agreed or strongly agreed and 24% did not agree or disagree. Only 4% disagreed.
However, relatively few respondents appeared to be concerned about the ability of pediatricians to address the problem of misinformation, Ms. Gottschlich reported.
When asked to respond to the statement that the “community recognizes and uses pediatricians as trusted source for health information,” 87% agreed or strongly agreed. Of the remaining, 9% did not agree or disagree, leaving just 4% that disagreed or strongly disagreed.
For a similar but slightly different question, the consensus was even greater. To the statement “patients/families in your practice seek your input as a trusted source for health information,” 94% agreed or strongly agreed.
Encountering Misinformation
The survey went on to ask pediatricians about encounters with misinformation for seven specific issues. On the five-point Likert scale, the choices ranged from a few times per year to every day.
For reproductive health, gender-affirming care, and firearm injury prevention, about 80% of respondents answered at the very low end of the scale, meaning no more than about once per month. Encounters with misinformation was slightly greater with autism; nearly one third responded that they encountered misinformation once a week or more frequently.
For all three questions regarding vaccines, the proportions climbed substantially. Of these, the COVID-19 vaccine was the most common topic of misinformation, with more than half reporting that they addressed incorrect information once a week or more. Seven percent reported this occurs daily.
Nearly 40% of pediatricians responded that they dealt with misinformation about the HPV vaccine once per week or more, while 35% reported that they encountered misinformation this frequently about routine childhood vaccines. There was a small but not necessarily trivial proportion for each of these categories of vaccine who reported that they encountered misinformation on a daily basis.
When stratified by clinical focus, the encounters varied. For the COVID-19 vaccine, general pediatricians (67%) were far more likely to report addressing misinformation on a weekly or more frequent basis than hospitalists (39%) or subspecialists (46%). They were more than twice as likely to encounter misinformation about the HPV vaccine than hospitalists or pediatric subspecialists (46%, 17%, and 19%, respectively).
When stratified by urban, suburban, or rural practice areas, differences were relatively modest. Pediatricians in urban practices were less likely to face misinformation about HPV vaccine (29% vs 44% and 48% for suburban and rural areas, respectively), while pediatricians in rural practice were more likely to face misinformation about routine childhood vaccines (60% vs 33% and 35% for urban and suburban practices, respectively).
Differences were even narrower when misinformation encounters were compared among the West, Midwest, South, and Northeast. For the threshold of once per week or more commonly, misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine was less common in the South (50% vs 55%-58% in the other areas), while misinformation about routine childhood vaccines was more commonly encountered in the West (41% vs 32%-35% in the other areas).
A Growing Problem
The confidence among pediatricians that their knowledge is valued is reassuring, according to Ms. Gottschlich, who noted that the U.S. Surgeon General declared health misinformation a serious threat to public health in 2021, but the problem of misinformation is growing, according to several sources.
One of these sources, at least in regard to adolescent health, appears to be social media, according to a recently published review article in JAMA Pediatrics. The lead author of that article, Monica L. Wang, DSc, has dual academic appointments at the Boston University School of Public Health and Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. Asked for a comment on this issue, she suggested that it might not be enough to just respond to misinformation but rather might be better to develop a dialogue that will reveal misconceptions.
“Just as they screen for preventive issues like seat belt use, sunscreen, and safe sex practices, [pediatricians should integrate] questions about health misinformation into visits, which can be a natural and effective way to encourage dialogue, proactively share accurate information, and promote well-being,” she said.
Agreeing with the premise that pediatricians are a credible source of information for parents and children, Dr. Wang very much endorses the principle that “pediatricians can play a critical role in addressing health misinformation.”
Ms. Gottschlich and Dr. Wang report no potential conflicts of interest.
TORONTO —
Despite acknowledging that health misinformation is on the rise, “nearly all the pediatricians we surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that their patients consider them a trusted information source,” reported Elizabeth A. Gottschlich, MA, a senior research associate with the American Academy of Pediatrics, Itasca, Illinois.
These data were generated by an ongoing cohort analysis called the Pediatricians Life and Career Experience Study (PLACES). Each year, two surveys are conducted with three groups of pediatricians in this cohort. They are defined by years in which they graduated from residency (2002-2004, 2009-2011, or 2016-2018).
While the longer survey of the two captures an array of issues regarding life and practice, the shorter “checkpoint” survey addresses a high-priority topic. In 2023, it was health misinformation. The data from this survey were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
About 40% of the 2706 pediatricians who completed this particular survey (just over 65% of the participants in PLACES) were general pediatricians, 50% were pediatric subspecialists, and 10% were hospitalists.
Almost all of the survey questions were answered on a five-point Likert scale.
A Matter of Trust
According to Ms. Gottschlich, approximately 80% of pediatricians agreed or strongly agreed that misinformation is a clinical issue for them. About one third of these strongly agreed, and only 6% disagreed.
There was also strong consensus that the problem has grown worse since the start of the COVID-19 epidemic. To this statement, 70% agreed or strongly agreed and 24% did not agree or disagree. Only 4% disagreed.
However, relatively few respondents appeared to be concerned about the ability of pediatricians to address the problem of misinformation, Ms. Gottschlich reported.
When asked to respond to the statement that the “community recognizes and uses pediatricians as trusted source for health information,” 87% agreed or strongly agreed. Of the remaining, 9% did not agree or disagree, leaving just 4% that disagreed or strongly disagreed.
For a similar but slightly different question, the consensus was even greater. To the statement “patients/families in your practice seek your input as a trusted source for health information,” 94% agreed or strongly agreed.
Encountering Misinformation
The survey went on to ask pediatricians about encounters with misinformation for seven specific issues. On the five-point Likert scale, the choices ranged from a few times per year to every day.
For reproductive health, gender-affirming care, and firearm injury prevention, about 80% of respondents answered at the very low end of the scale, meaning no more than about once per month. Encounters with misinformation was slightly greater with autism; nearly one third responded that they encountered misinformation once a week or more frequently.
For all three questions regarding vaccines, the proportions climbed substantially. Of these, the COVID-19 vaccine was the most common topic of misinformation, with more than half reporting that they addressed incorrect information once a week or more. Seven percent reported this occurs daily.
Nearly 40% of pediatricians responded that they dealt with misinformation about the HPV vaccine once per week or more, while 35% reported that they encountered misinformation this frequently about routine childhood vaccines. There was a small but not necessarily trivial proportion for each of these categories of vaccine who reported that they encountered misinformation on a daily basis.
When stratified by clinical focus, the encounters varied. For the COVID-19 vaccine, general pediatricians (67%) were far more likely to report addressing misinformation on a weekly or more frequent basis than hospitalists (39%) or subspecialists (46%). They were more than twice as likely to encounter misinformation about the HPV vaccine than hospitalists or pediatric subspecialists (46%, 17%, and 19%, respectively).
When stratified by urban, suburban, or rural practice areas, differences were relatively modest. Pediatricians in urban practices were less likely to face misinformation about HPV vaccine (29% vs 44% and 48% for suburban and rural areas, respectively), while pediatricians in rural practice were more likely to face misinformation about routine childhood vaccines (60% vs 33% and 35% for urban and suburban practices, respectively).
Differences were even narrower when misinformation encounters were compared among the West, Midwest, South, and Northeast. For the threshold of once per week or more commonly, misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine was less common in the South (50% vs 55%-58% in the other areas), while misinformation about routine childhood vaccines was more commonly encountered in the West (41% vs 32%-35% in the other areas).
A Growing Problem
The confidence among pediatricians that their knowledge is valued is reassuring, according to Ms. Gottschlich, who noted that the U.S. Surgeon General declared health misinformation a serious threat to public health in 2021, but the problem of misinformation is growing, according to several sources.
One of these sources, at least in regard to adolescent health, appears to be social media, according to a recently published review article in JAMA Pediatrics. The lead author of that article, Monica L. Wang, DSc, has dual academic appointments at the Boston University School of Public Health and Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. Asked for a comment on this issue, she suggested that it might not be enough to just respond to misinformation but rather might be better to develop a dialogue that will reveal misconceptions.
“Just as they screen for preventive issues like seat belt use, sunscreen, and safe sex practices, [pediatricians should integrate] questions about health misinformation into visits, which can be a natural and effective way to encourage dialogue, proactively share accurate information, and promote well-being,” she said.
Agreeing with the premise that pediatricians are a credible source of information for parents and children, Dr. Wang very much endorses the principle that “pediatricians can play a critical role in addressing health misinformation.”
Ms. Gottschlich and Dr. Wang report no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM PAS 2024