User login
News and Views that Matter to Pediatricians
The leading independent newspaper covering news and commentary in pediatrics.
AAP Updates Guidance on Vaccine Communication and Hesitancy
The measles outbreak in Florida, occurring just as health officials announced an official end to Philadelphia’s measles outbreak and rising global cases, has cast attention once again on concerns about vaccine hesitancy. In the midst of Florida’s surgeon general avoiding measles vaccination recommendations for parents, the American Academy of Pediatrics has updated its clinical guidance on vaccine communication.
“Disruption to routine pediatric vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic has left many children vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases and more locations susceptible to outbreaks in the United States and around the world,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and his colleagues, wrote in the new report, published in the March issue of Pediatrics. “Geographic clustering of vaccine refusal further increases the risk of communicable disease outbreaks in certain communities even when vaccination rates at a state or national level remain high overall.”
The authors note that disease resurgence may bolster vaccine uptake, with media coverage of recent outbreaks linked to more pro-vaccine discussions and attitudes among parents. But the evidence on that remains inconclusive, and the authors point out the slow uptake in COVID-19 vaccination as parents navigate ongoing spread of both the disease and vaccine misinformation.
Conflicting Evidence on Postpandemic Attitudes
It remains unclear how parent attitudes toward vaccines have shifted, if at all, since the pandemic. A study published in Pediatrics from October 2023, which Dr. O’Leary also coauthored, analyzed data from an online survey of Colorado mothers between 2018 and 2021 and found no significant difference in vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic compared with pre-pandemic.
Among 3,553 respondents, 1 in 5 (20.4%) were vaccine hesitant overall. Though parents were twice as likely to feel uncertain in trusting vaccine information after the COVID-19 vaccines were authorized (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.14), they were half as likely to be unsure about hesitancy toward childhood vaccines (aOR 0.48).
Another study in Pediatrics from October 2023 found that common concerns about COVID-19 vaccines among parents included infertility, long-term effects from the vaccines, and effects on preexisting medical conditions. But even then, participants in focus groups “expressed that they would listen to their doctor for information about COVID-19 vaccines,” wrote Aubree Honcoop, MPS, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, and her colleagues.
“I think what we’re seeing, very importantly, is that physicians seem to be the source people rely on,” said Walter Orenstein, MD, professor of medicine and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University in Atlanta. “But we need to give the physicians time and incentives to spend time with families,” such as a billing code for vaccine counseling, he said.
Dr. Orenstein was surprised to see the results from Colorado, but he noted they were from a small survey in a single state. He pointed to other findings, such as those from the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center in November 2023, that found lower confidence overall among Americans toward vaccines.
Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending infectious disease physician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, where the city’s measles outbreak began, is similarly skeptical about the Colorado study’s findings that parent vaccine attitudes have changed little since the pandemic. At the AAP’s annual conference in October 2023, Dr. Offit asked pediatricians about their experiences while he signed books.
“I would ask, ‘So what’s it like out there? Are we winning or losing?’ ” he said. “I would say, to a person, everyone said they felt things were much worse now than they ever have been before.”
Clinical Guidance
The new report reviews previously published evidence on the spectrum of parental vaccine acceptance — from supporters and “go along to get along” parents to cautious acceptors and fence sitters to vaccine refusers — and the determinants that contribute to hesitancy. They also noted the social inequities that have played a role in vaccine uptake disparities.
“Distrust of health systems based on historic and ongoing discrimination and inequitable access to care are intertwined challenges that contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in vaccine uptake,” the authors wrote. “Although there has been progress in reducing racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in childhood vaccination coverage, the COVID-19 pandemic made clear how much work is yet to be done.”
The report also reviewed the societal, individual, payer and pediatric practice costs of vaccine refusal. The 1-year cost to taxpayers from the measles outbreak in New York City in 2018-2019, for example, was $8.4 million, excluding vaccination programs.
The report provides background information to equip pediatricians for conversations with parents about vaccines. Since safety is the top concern for vaccine hesitancy among parents, the authors advised pediatricians to be familiar with the process of vaccine testing, emergency use authorization, licensure, approval, recommendations, and safety monitoring, including the Vaccine Safety Datalink, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the FDA’s Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) system, and the CDC’s Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project (CISA).
“Because vaccines are generally given to healthy individuals to prevent disease, they are held to a higher safety standard than other medications,” the authors wrote before providing a summary of the process for physicians to reference. The report also includes information on vaccine ingredients and a chart of common misconceptions about vaccines with the corresponding facts.
Overcoming Hesitancy
Evidence-based strategies for increasing childhood vaccine uptake begin with a strong vaccine recommendation using a presumptive rather than participatory approach, the authors wrote. “A presumptive format is one in which the clinician asserts a position regarding vaccines using a closed-ended statement, such as ‘Sara is due for several vaccines today’ or ‘Well, we have to do some shots,’ ” the authors wrote. “This strategy is in contrast to a participatory format, in which an open-ended question is used to more explicitly invite the parent to voice an opinion, such as ‘How do you feel about vaccines today?’ ” The presumptive format and a strong recommendation are both associated with greater uptake, evidence shows.
For parents who express hesitancy, the authors provide a summary of additional evidence-based communication strategies, starting with motivational interviewing. Two other strategies they highlight include using language to re-emphasize the importance of adhering to the CDC recommended schedule — “He really needs these shots” — and bundling discussion of all recommended vaccines for a visit at once.
“Finally, clinicians can emphasize their own experiences when discussing the need for vaccination, including personal experience with vaccine-preventable diseases and the fact that they and their families are vaccinated because of their confidence in the safety and efficacy of the vaccines,” the authors wrote.
For families who refuse or delay vaccines, the authors reviewed the “ethical arguments both in favor of and against dismissal policies,” noting that nearly all pediatricians who report dismissing families who refuse vaccination are in private practice, since large systems are often unable to dismiss patients. They also point out that fewer pediatricians dismiss families for spreading out vaccines than outright refusing all vaccines.
”Dismissal of child patients of vaccine-refusing parents can be a difficult decision arrived at after considering multiple factors and documented attempts to counsel vaccine-refusing families,” they wrote. “However, if repeated attempts to help understand and address parental values and vaccine concerns fails to engender trust, move parents toward vaccine acceptance, or strengthen the therapeutic alliance, dismissal can be an acceptable option.”
Finally, the authors reminded pediatricians “that vaccine-hesitant parents are a heterogeneous group and that specific parental vaccine concerns need to be individually identified and addressed.” Working with families to discuss their questions and concerns is an opportunity to “build rapport and trust with a family,” they wrote, ”and, ultimately, protect their children from the scourge of vaccine-preventable diseases.”
The focus groups study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the authors reported having no disclosures. The Colorado attitudes study used no external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. The new clinical report used no external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Orenstein is an uncompensated member of the Moderna Scientific Advisory Board. Dr. Offit codeveloped a licensed rotavirus vaccine, but he does not receive any royalties or own a patent for that.
The measles outbreak in Florida, occurring just as health officials announced an official end to Philadelphia’s measles outbreak and rising global cases, has cast attention once again on concerns about vaccine hesitancy. In the midst of Florida’s surgeon general avoiding measles vaccination recommendations for parents, the American Academy of Pediatrics has updated its clinical guidance on vaccine communication.
“Disruption to routine pediatric vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic has left many children vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases and more locations susceptible to outbreaks in the United States and around the world,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and his colleagues, wrote in the new report, published in the March issue of Pediatrics. “Geographic clustering of vaccine refusal further increases the risk of communicable disease outbreaks in certain communities even when vaccination rates at a state or national level remain high overall.”
The authors note that disease resurgence may bolster vaccine uptake, with media coverage of recent outbreaks linked to more pro-vaccine discussions and attitudes among parents. But the evidence on that remains inconclusive, and the authors point out the slow uptake in COVID-19 vaccination as parents navigate ongoing spread of both the disease and vaccine misinformation.
Conflicting Evidence on Postpandemic Attitudes
It remains unclear how parent attitudes toward vaccines have shifted, if at all, since the pandemic. A study published in Pediatrics from October 2023, which Dr. O’Leary also coauthored, analyzed data from an online survey of Colorado mothers between 2018 and 2021 and found no significant difference in vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic compared with pre-pandemic.
Among 3,553 respondents, 1 in 5 (20.4%) were vaccine hesitant overall. Though parents were twice as likely to feel uncertain in trusting vaccine information after the COVID-19 vaccines were authorized (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.14), they were half as likely to be unsure about hesitancy toward childhood vaccines (aOR 0.48).
Another study in Pediatrics from October 2023 found that common concerns about COVID-19 vaccines among parents included infertility, long-term effects from the vaccines, and effects on preexisting medical conditions. But even then, participants in focus groups “expressed that they would listen to their doctor for information about COVID-19 vaccines,” wrote Aubree Honcoop, MPS, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, and her colleagues.
“I think what we’re seeing, very importantly, is that physicians seem to be the source people rely on,” said Walter Orenstein, MD, professor of medicine and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University in Atlanta. “But we need to give the physicians time and incentives to spend time with families,” such as a billing code for vaccine counseling, he said.
Dr. Orenstein was surprised to see the results from Colorado, but he noted they were from a small survey in a single state. He pointed to other findings, such as those from the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center in November 2023, that found lower confidence overall among Americans toward vaccines.
Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending infectious disease physician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, where the city’s measles outbreak began, is similarly skeptical about the Colorado study’s findings that parent vaccine attitudes have changed little since the pandemic. At the AAP’s annual conference in October 2023, Dr. Offit asked pediatricians about their experiences while he signed books.
“I would ask, ‘So what’s it like out there? Are we winning or losing?’ ” he said. “I would say, to a person, everyone said they felt things were much worse now than they ever have been before.”
Clinical Guidance
The new report reviews previously published evidence on the spectrum of parental vaccine acceptance — from supporters and “go along to get along” parents to cautious acceptors and fence sitters to vaccine refusers — and the determinants that contribute to hesitancy. They also noted the social inequities that have played a role in vaccine uptake disparities.
“Distrust of health systems based on historic and ongoing discrimination and inequitable access to care are intertwined challenges that contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in vaccine uptake,” the authors wrote. “Although there has been progress in reducing racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in childhood vaccination coverage, the COVID-19 pandemic made clear how much work is yet to be done.”
The report also reviewed the societal, individual, payer and pediatric practice costs of vaccine refusal. The 1-year cost to taxpayers from the measles outbreak in New York City in 2018-2019, for example, was $8.4 million, excluding vaccination programs.
The report provides background information to equip pediatricians for conversations with parents about vaccines. Since safety is the top concern for vaccine hesitancy among parents, the authors advised pediatricians to be familiar with the process of vaccine testing, emergency use authorization, licensure, approval, recommendations, and safety monitoring, including the Vaccine Safety Datalink, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the FDA’s Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) system, and the CDC’s Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project (CISA).
“Because vaccines are generally given to healthy individuals to prevent disease, they are held to a higher safety standard than other medications,” the authors wrote before providing a summary of the process for physicians to reference. The report also includes information on vaccine ingredients and a chart of common misconceptions about vaccines with the corresponding facts.
Overcoming Hesitancy
Evidence-based strategies for increasing childhood vaccine uptake begin with a strong vaccine recommendation using a presumptive rather than participatory approach, the authors wrote. “A presumptive format is one in which the clinician asserts a position regarding vaccines using a closed-ended statement, such as ‘Sara is due for several vaccines today’ or ‘Well, we have to do some shots,’ ” the authors wrote. “This strategy is in contrast to a participatory format, in which an open-ended question is used to more explicitly invite the parent to voice an opinion, such as ‘How do you feel about vaccines today?’ ” The presumptive format and a strong recommendation are both associated with greater uptake, evidence shows.
For parents who express hesitancy, the authors provide a summary of additional evidence-based communication strategies, starting with motivational interviewing. Two other strategies they highlight include using language to re-emphasize the importance of adhering to the CDC recommended schedule — “He really needs these shots” — and bundling discussion of all recommended vaccines for a visit at once.
“Finally, clinicians can emphasize their own experiences when discussing the need for vaccination, including personal experience with vaccine-preventable diseases and the fact that they and their families are vaccinated because of their confidence in the safety and efficacy of the vaccines,” the authors wrote.
For families who refuse or delay vaccines, the authors reviewed the “ethical arguments both in favor of and against dismissal policies,” noting that nearly all pediatricians who report dismissing families who refuse vaccination are in private practice, since large systems are often unable to dismiss patients. They also point out that fewer pediatricians dismiss families for spreading out vaccines than outright refusing all vaccines.
”Dismissal of child patients of vaccine-refusing parents can be a difficult decision arrived at after considering multiple factors and documented attempts to counsel vaccine-refusing families,” they wrote. “However, if repeated attempts to help understand and address parental values and vaccine concerns fails to engender trust, move parents toward vaccine acceptance, or strengthen the therapeutic alliance, dismissal can be an acceptable option.”
Finally, the authors reminded pediatricians “that vaccine-hesitant parents are a heterogeneous group and that specific parental vaccine concerns need to be individually identified and addressed.” Working with families to discuss their questions and concerns is an opportunity to “build rapport and trust with a family,” they wrote, ”and, ultimately, protect their children from the scourge of vaccine-preventable diseases.”
The focus groups study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the authors reported having no disclosures. The Colorado attitudes study used no external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. The new clinical report used no external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Orenstein is an uncompensated member of the Moderna Scientific Advisory Board. Dr. Offit codeveloped a licensed rotavirus vaccine, but he does not receive any royalties or own a patent for that.
The measles outbreak in Florida, occurring just as health officials announced an official end to Philadelphia’s measles outbreak and rising global cases, has cast attention once again on concerns about vaccine hesitancy. In the midst of Florida’s surgeon general avoiding measles vaccination recommendations for parents, the American Academy of Pediatrics has updated its clinical guidance on vaccine communication.
“Disruption to routine pediatric vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic has left many children vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases and more locations susceptible to outbreaks in the United States and around the world,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and his colleagues, wrote in the new report, published in the March issue of Pediatrics. “Geographic clustering of vaccine refusal further increases the risk of communicable disease outbreaks in certain communities even when vaccination rates at a state or national level remain high overall.”
The authors note that disease resurgence may bolster vaccine uptake, with media coverage of recent outbreaks linked to more pro-vaccine discussions and attitudes among parents. But the evidence on that remains inconclusive, and the authors point out the slow uptake in COVID-19 vaccination as parents navigate ongoing spread of both the disease and vaccine misinformation.
Conflicting Evidence on Postpandemic Attitudes
It remains unclear how parent attitudes toward vaccines have shifted, if at all, since the pandemic. A study published in Pediatrics from October 2023, which Dr. O’Leary also coauthored, analyzed data from an online survey of Colorado mothers between 2018 and 2021 and found no significant difference in vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic compared with pre-pandemic.
Among 3,553 respondents, 1 in 5 (20.4%) were vaccine hesitant overall. Though parents were twice as likely to feel uncertain in trusting vaccine information after the COVID-19 vaccines were authorized (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.14), they were half as likely to be unsure about hesitancy toward childhood vaccines (aOR 0.48).
Another study in Pediatrics from October 2023 found that common concerns about COVID-19 vaccines among parents included infertility, long-term effects from the vaccines, and effects on preexisting medical conditions. But even then, participants in focus groups “expressed that they would listen to their doctor for information about COVID-19 vaccines,” wrote Aubree Honcoop, MPS, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, and her colleagues.
“I think what we’re seeing, very importantly, is that physicians seem to be the source people rely on,” said Walter Orenstein, MD, professor of medicine and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University in Atlanta. “But we need to give the physicians time and incentives to spend time with families,” such as a billing code for vaccine counseling, he said.
Dr. Orenstein was surprised to see the results from Colorado, but he noted they were from a small survey in a single state. He pointed to other findings, such as those from the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center in November 2023, that found lower confidence overall among Americans toward vaccines.
Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending infectious disease physician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, where the city’s measles outbreak began, is similarly skeptical about the Colorado study’s findings that parent vaccine attitudes have changed little since the pandemic. At the AAP’s annual conference in October 2023, Dr. Offit asked pediatricians about their experiences while he signed books.
“I would ask, ‘So what’s it like out there? Are we winning or losing?’ ” he said. “I would say, to a person, everyone said they felt things were much worse now than they ever have been before.”
Clinical Guidance
The new report reviews previously published evidence on the spectrum of parental vaccine acceptance — from supporters and “go along to get along” parents to cautious acceptors and fence sitters to vaccine refusers — and the determinants that contribute to hesitancy. They also noted the social inequities that have played a role in vaccine uptake disparities.
“Distrust of health systems based on historic and ongoing discrimination and inequitable access to care are intertwined challenges that contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in vaccine uptake,” the authors wrote. “Although there has been progress in reducing racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in childhood vaccination coverage, the COVID-19 pandemic made clear how much work is yet to be done.”
The report also reviewed the societal, individual, payer and pediatric practice costs of vaccine refusal. The 1-year cost to taxpayers from the measles outbreak in New York City in 2018-2019, for example, was $8.4 million, excluding vaccination programs.
The report provides background information to equip pediatricians for conversations with parents about vaccines. Since safety is the top concern for vaccine hesitancy among parents, the authors advised pediatricians to be familiar with the process of vaccine testing, emergency use authorization, licensure, approval, recommendations, and safety monitoring, including the Vaccine Safety Datalink, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the FDA’s Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) system, and the CDC’s Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project (CISA).
“Because vaccines are generally given to healthy individuals to prevent disease, they are held to a higher safety standard than other medications,” the authors wrote before providing a summary of the process for physicians to reference. The report also includes information on vaccine ingredients and a chart of common misconceptions about vaccines with the corresponding facts.
Overcoming Hesitancy
Evidence-based strategies for increasing childhood vaccine uptake begin with a strong vaccine recommendation using a presumptive rather than participatory approach, the authors wrote. “A presumptive format is one in which the clinician asserts a position regarding vaccines using a closed-ended statement, such as ‘Sara is due for several vaccines today’ or ‘Well, we have to do some shots,’ ” the authors wrote. “This strategy is in contrast to a participatory format, in which an open-ended question is used to more explicitly invite the parent to voice an opinion, such as ‘How do you feel about vaccines today?’ ” The presumptive format and a strong recommendation are both associated with greater uptake, evidence shows.
For parents who express hesitancy, the authors provide a summary of additional evidence-based communication strategies, starting with motivational interviewing. Two other strategies they highlight include using language to re-emphasize the importance of adhering to the CDC recommended schedule — “He really needs these shots” — and bundling discussion of all recommended vaccines for a visit at once.
“Finally, clinicians can emphasize their own experiences when discussing the need for vaccination, including personal experience with vaccine-preventable diseases and the fact that they and their families are vaccinated because of their confidence in the safety and efficacy of the vaccines,” the authors wrote.
For families who refuse or delay vaccines, the authors reviewed the “ethical arguments both in favor of and against dismissal policies,” noting that nearly all pediatricians who report dismissing families who refuse vaccination are in private practice, since large systems are often unable to dismiss patients. They also point out that fewer pediatricians dismiss families for spreading out vaccines than outright refusing all vaccines.
”Dismissal of child patients of vaccine-refusing parents can be a difficult decision arrived at after considering multiple factors and documented attempts to counsel vaccine-refusing families,” they wrote. “However, if repeated attempts to help understand and address parental values and vaccine concerns fails to engender trust, move parents toward vaccine acceptance, or strengthen the therapeutic alliance, dismissal can be an acceptable option.”
Finally, the authors reminded pediatricians “that vaccine-hesitant parents are a heterogeneous group and that specific parental vaccine concerns need to be individually identified and addressed.” Working with families to discuss their questions and concerns is an opportunity to “build rapport and trust with a family,” they wrote, ”and, ultimately, protect their children from the scourge of vaccine-preventable diseases.”
The focus groups study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the authors reported having no disclosures. The Colorado attitudes study used no external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. The new clinical report used no external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Orenstein is an uncompensated member of the Moderna Scientific Advisory Board. Dr. Offit codeveloped a licensed rotavirus vaccine, but he does not receive any royalties or own a patent for that.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Do Kids With an October Birthday Have Protection From Flu?
TOPLINE:
A new study shows young children with October birthdays may have better protection against flu.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from the MarketScan Research Database between 2011 and 2018.
- They focused on 819,223 children aged 2-5 years who were vaccinated against influenza between August 1 and January 31 and whose birthdays fell during that window.
TAKEAWAY:
- Children born in October had the lowest rate of influenza diagnosis, with an average diagnosis rate of 2.7%, whereas those born in August had a diagnosis rate of 3%.
- Compared with children born in August, the adjusted odds ratio for influenza diagnosis in children born in October was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92).
IN PRACTICE:
“The findings support current recommendations that children be vaccinated in October preceding a typical influenza season,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, with Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, was the corresponding author on the study. The research was published online in BMJ .
LIMITATIONS:
The availability of the influenza vaccine and the peak of seasonal flu infections vary by year and region.
DISCLOSURES:
Researchers disclosed consulting fees from pharmaceutical and healthcare companies unrelated to the study.
This article was created 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.
TOPLINE:
A new study shows young children with October birthdays may have better protection against flu.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from the MarketScan Research Database between 2011 and 2018.
- They focused on 819,223 children aged 2-5 years who were vaccinated against influenza between August 1 and January 31 and whose birthdays fell during that window.
TAKEAWAY:
- Children born in October had the lowest rate of influenza diagnosis, with an average diagnosis rate of 2.7%, whereas those born in August had a diagnosis rate of 3%.
- Compared with children born in August, the adjusted odds ratio for influenza diagnosis in children born in October was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92).
IN PRACTICE:
“The findings support current recommendations that children be vaccinated in October preceding a typical influenza season,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, with Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, was the corresponding author on the study. The research was published online in BMJ .
LIMITATIONS:
The availability of the influenza vaccine and the peak of seasonal flu infections vary by year and region.
DISCLOSURES:
Researchers disclosed consulting fees from pharmaceutical and healthcare companies unrelated to the study.
This article was created 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.
TOPLINE:
A new study shows young children with October birthdays may have better protection against flu.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from the MarketScan Research Database between 2011 and 2018.
- They focused on 819,223 children aged 2-5 years who were vaccinated against influenza between August 1 and January 31 and whose birthdays fell during that window.
TAKEAWAY:
- Children born in October had the lowest rate of influenza diagnosis, with an average diagnosis rate of 2.7%, whereas those born in August had a diagnosis rate of 3%.
- Compared with children born in August, the adjusted odds ratio for influenza diagnosis in children born in October was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92).
IN PRACTICE:
“The findings support current recommendations that children be vaccinated in October preceding a typical influenza season,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, with Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, was the corresponding author on the study. The research was published online in BMJ .
LIMITATIONS:
The availability of the influenza vaccine and the peak of seasonal flu infections vary by year and region.
DISCLOSURES:
Researchers disclosed consulting fees from pharmaceutical and healthcare companies unrelated to the study.
This article was created 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.
FDA Removes Harmful Chemicals From Food Packaging
Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.
In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.
PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others
The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.
“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.
The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.
At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”
Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”
While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.
Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.
Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.
“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
New Data on Four Classes of EDCs
Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.
The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.
Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.
Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.
The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’
Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.
The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”
The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.
In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.
PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others
The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.
“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.
The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.
At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”
Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”
While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.
Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.
Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.
“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
New Data on Four Classes of EDCs
Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.
The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.
Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.
Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.
The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’
Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.
The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”
The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.
In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.
PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others
The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.
“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.
The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.
At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”
Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”
While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.
Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.
Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.
“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
New Data on Four Classes of EDCs
Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.
The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.
Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.
Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.
The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’
Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.
The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”
The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Receiving Unfair Negative Patient Reviews Online? These Apps Pledge Relief
Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.
Increasingly, they’re turning to
Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.
Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.
Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.
“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”
Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”
How Automated Systems Work
A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.
Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.
Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)
“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”
But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.
He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.
Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”
Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”
He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.
What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?
“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.
Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.
Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.
Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”
Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”
Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.
Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?
Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.
Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.
Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.
Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.
By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.
Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.
How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.
Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?
Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.
Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”
“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”
Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.
Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.
Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.
Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.
Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”
Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.
Conclusion
Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.
Increasingly, they’re turning to
Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.
Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.
Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.
“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”
Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”
How Automated Systems Work
A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.
Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.
Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)
“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”
But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.
He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.
Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”
Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”
He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.
What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?
“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.
Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.
Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.
Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”
Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”
Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.
Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?
Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.
Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.
Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.
Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.
By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.
Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.
How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.
Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?
Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.
Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”
“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”
Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.
Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.
Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.
Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.
Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”
Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.
Conclusion
Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.
Increasingly, they’re turning to
Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.
Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.
Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.
“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”
Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”
How Automated Systems Work
A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.
Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.
Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)
“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”
But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.
He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.
Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”
Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”
He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.
What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?
“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.
Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.
Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.
Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”
Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”
Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.
Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?
Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.
Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.
Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.
Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.
By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.
Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.
How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.
Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?
Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.
Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”
“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”
Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.
Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.
Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.
Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.
Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”
Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.
Conclusion
Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SUID and a Cardboard Box
In this February’s issue of the journal Pediatrics there is an interesting paper that explores the demographics and sleep environments of the more than 8000 sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) victims who died in the United States between 2011 and 2020. The authors’ broad conclusion was “Most SUID, regardless of sleep location, had multiple unsafe sleep factors present demonstrating the need for comprehensive sleep counseling for every family at every encounter.”
From the perspective of a former busy primary care physician I shudder when I read a statement this broad because it doesn’t acknowledge the realities of my professional life. A sentence containing “comprehensive” and two “every’s” won’t be taken seriously by most of the practicing pediatricians I know. However, there is an abundance of information generated by these investigators that could help a pediatrician target his advice to the individual families in his practice without having to resort to time-consuming comprehensive counseling, which is likely to sound like just so much chatter to families overwhelmed by the new challenge of raising a child.
For example, nearly 60% of SUID cases were sharing a sleep surface when they died, and surface-sharing infants were more likely to not have a crib in their home. It seems to me that one should start with the simple question, “Do your have a crib in your home ... in all the homes where the baby will sleep?” And, it should be asked in the hospital prior to discharge.
In 1993, our second-born daughter went home from a teaching hospital in a cardboard box. So did all of her nursery mates. It was decorated with a stork motif and had served as her bassinet. Since early in the last century, families in Finland have been offered a similar box filled with baby supplies. Shrinkflation has caused a scale back in its contents, but the box itself has remained as a safe and inexpensive sleep surface for income-challenged families.
Many babies in this country are put to sleep in a variety of places as they are shuttled around to where the inexpensive childcare is available. Offering families as many boxes as they need may avoid the tragedy of their infant smothering on Aunt Louise’s couch or Cousin Martha’s bed littered with pillows. This is particularly important in a family with multiples (twins, triplets, etc.) who are overrepresented in the SUID population. The opening question about crib availability is likely to alert the healthcare provider to a social situation dominated by poverty that may include lower parental education and a higher likelihood of residential insecurity, all of which are associated with surface-sharing.
The authors observe “surface-sharing in and of itself may not be what caregiver education should focus on.” A simple cardboard box, however, is not a sleep surface likely to be shared with an adult.
For the families for whom surface-sharing is a choice and not a necessity, the investigators encourage us to engage families on their motivation for surface-sharing. This is a discussion that clinicians should be initiating, regardless of our concern of SUID prevention, by simply asking “How are you and your baby sleeping?” Is the baby being nursed to sleep? Where? While the authors acknowledge that their raw data did not allow them to make any observations on a relationship between surface-sharing and breastfeeding, my anecdotal observations have found an unfortunate number of mothers who have become human pacifiers for their babies and are co-sleeping. This association can result in a sleep-deprived parent(s) with unhealthy consequences. Although it can be difficult to uncouple breastfeeding from settling, early intervention triggered by asking a simple question can improve the chances of resolution.
Although I may quibble with the wording of authors’ final conclusion, this is an excellent paper worth looking at. SUID while infrequent and for the most part still mysterious is a tragedy that we should be able to prevent.
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 this February’s issue of the journal Pediatrics there is an interesting paper that explores the demographics and sleep environments of the more than 8000 sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) victims who died in the United States between 2011 and 2020. The authors’ broad conclusion was “Most SUID, regardless of sleep location, had multiple unsafe sleep factors present demonstrating the need for comprehensive sleep counseling for every family at every encounter.”
From the perspective of a former busy primary care physician I shudder when I read a statement this broad because it doesn’t acknowledge the realities of my professional life. A sentence containing “comprehensive” and two “every’s” won’t be taken seriously by most of the practicing pediatricians I know. However, there is an abundance of information generated by these investigators that could help a pediatrician target his advice to the individual families in his practice without having to resort to time-consuming comprehensive counseling, which is likely to sound like just so much chatter to families overwhelmed by the new challenge of raising a child.
For example, nearly 60% of SUID cases were sharing a sleep surface when they died, and surface-sharing infants were more likely to not have a crib in their home. It seems to me that one should start with the simple question, “Do your have a crib in your home ... in all the homes where the baby will sleep?” And, it should be asked in the hospital prior to discharge.
In 1993, our second-born daughter went home from a teaching hospital in a cardboard box. So did all of her nursery mates. It was decorated with a stork motif and had served as her bassinet. Since early in the last century, families in Finland have been offered a similar box filled with baby supplies. Shrinkflation has caused a scale back in its contents, but the box itself has remained as a safe and inexpensive sleep surface for income-challenged families.
Many babies in this country are put to sleep in a variety of places as they are shuttled around to where the inexpensive childcare is available. Offering families as many boxes as they need may avoid the tragedy of their infant smothering on Aunt Louise’s couch or Cousin Martha’s bed littered with pillows. This is particularly important in a family with multiples (twins, triplets, etc.) who are overrepresented in the SUID population. The opening question about crib availability is likely to alert the healthcare provider to a social situation dominated by poverty that may include lower parental education and a higher likelihood of residential insecurity, all of which are associated with surface-sharing.
The authors observe “surface-sharing in and of itself may not be what caregiver education should focus on.” A simple cardboard box, however, is not a sleep surface likely to be shared with an adult.
For the families for whom surface-sharing is a choice and not a necessity, the investigators encourage us to engage families on their motivation for surface-sharing. This is a discussion that clinicians should be initiating, regardless of our concern of SUID prevention, by simply asking “How are you and your baby sleeping?” Is the baby being nursed to sleep? Where? While the authors acknowledge that their raw data did not allow them to make any observations on a relationship between surface-sharing and breastfeeding, my anecdotal observations have found an unfortunate number of mothers who have become human pacifiers for their babies and are co-sleeping. This association can result in a sleep-deprived parent(s) with unhealthy consequences. Although it can be difficult to uncouple breastfeeding from settling, early intervention triggered by asking a simple question can improve the chances of resolution.
Although I may quibble with the wording of authors’ final conclusion, this is an excellent paper worth looking at. SUID while infrequent and for the most part still mysterious is a tragedy that we should be able to prevent.
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 this February’s issue of the journal Pediatrics there is an interesting paper that explores the demographics and sleep environments of the more than 8000 sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) victims who died in the United States between 2011 and 2020. The authors’ broad conclusion was “Most SUID, regardless of sleep location, had multiple unsafe sleep factors present demonstrating the need for comprehensive sleep counseling for every family at every encounter.”
From the perspective of a former busy primary care physician I shudder when I read a statement this broad because it doesn’t acknowledge the realities of my professional life. A sentence containing “comprehensive” and two “every’s” won’t be taken seriously by most of the practicing pediatricians I know. However, there is an abundance of information generated by these investigators that could help a pediatrician target his advice to the individual families in his practice without having to resort to time-consuming comprehensive counseling, which is likely to sound like just so much chatter to families overwhelmed by the new challenge of raising a child.
For example, nearly 60% of SUID cases were sharing a sleep surface when they died, and surface-sharing infants were more likely to not have a crib in their home. It seems to me that one should start with the simple question, “Do your have a crib in your home ... in all the homes where the baby will sleep?” And, it should be asked in the hospital prior to discharge.
In 1993, our second-born daughter went home from a teaching hospital in a cardboard box. So did all of her nursery mates. It was decorated with a stork motif and had served as her bassinet. Since early in the last century, families in Finland have been offered a similar box filled with baby supplies. Shrinkflation has caused a scale back in its contents, but the box itself has remained as a safe and inexpensive sleep surface for income-challenged families.
Many babies in this country are put to sleep in a variety of places as they are shuttled around to where the inexpensive childcare is available. Offering families as many boxes as they need may avoid the tragedy of their infant smothering on Aunt Louise’s couch or Cousin Martha’s bed littered with pillows. This is particularly important in a family with multiples (twins, triplets, etc.) who are overrepresented in the SUID population. The opening question about crib availability is likely to alert the healthcare provider to a social situation dominated by poverty that may include lower parental education and a higher likelihood of residential insecurity, all of which are associated with surface-sharing.
The authors observe “surface-sharing in and of itself may not be what caregiver education should focus on.” A simple cardboard box, however, is not a sleep surface likely to be shared with an adult.
For the families for whom surface-sharing is a choice and not a necessity, the investigators encourage us to engage families on their motivation for surface-sharing. This is a discussion that clinicians should be initiating, regardless of our concern of SUID prevention, by simply asking “How are you and your baby sleeping?” Is the baby being nursed to sleep? Where? While the authors acknowledge that their raw data did not allow them to make any observations on a relationship between surface-sharing and breastfeeding, my anecdotal observations have found an unfortunate number of mothers who have become human pacifiers for their babies and are co-sleeping. This association can result in a sleep-deprived parent(s) with unhealthy consequences. Although it can be difficult to uncouple breastfeeding from settling, early intervention triggered by asking a simple question can improve the chances of resolution.
Although I may quibble with the wording of authors’ final conclusion, this is an excellent paper worth looking at. SUID while infrequent and for the most part still mysterious is a tragedy that we should be able to prevent.
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].
National Rapid Genome Testing Program Benefits NICU Care
TOPLINE:
A national study in Israel demonstrates the feasibility and diagnostic benefits of rapid trio genome sequencing in critically ill neonates.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a prospective, multicenter cohort study from October 2021 to December 2022, involving all Israeli medical genetics institutes and neonatal intensive care units.
- A total of 130 critically ill neonates suspected of having a genetic disorder were enrolled, with rapid genome sequencing results expected within 10 days.
TAKEAWAY:
- Rapid trio genome sequencing diagnosed 50% of the neonates with disease-causing variants, including 12 chromosomal and 52 monogenic conditions.
- Another 11% had variants of unknown significance that were suspected to be disease-causing, and 1% had a novel gene suspected of causing disease.
- The mean turnaround time for the rapid reports was 7 days, demonstrating the feasibility of implementing rapid genome sequencing in a national healthcare setting, the researchers said.
- Genomic testing led to a change in clinical management for 22% of the neonates, which shows the clinical utility of this approach to diagnosis, they said.
IN PRACTICE:
Genetic testing may identify patients who are candidates for precision medical treatment and inform family planning, which is “critical for families with a severely affected or deceased child,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The corresponding author for the study was Daphna Marom, MD, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. It was published online on February 22, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s reliance on voluntary participation may have introduced referral bias, potentially affecting the diagnostic rates. The long-term impact of diagnosis on survival, growth, and development remains to be evaluated. Bioinformatics tools have limitations, as shown by the missed detection of maternal uniparental disomy in one case of a hypotonic infant with Prader-Willi syndrome, the researchers noted. Clinical judgment is still essential, they said.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was sponsored by a collaboration between the Israeli Ministry of Health, Illumina, and the Genomics Center at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. Illumina provided reagents, bioinformatics tools, and editorial assistance. Study authors disclosed financial ties to Illumina.
This article was created 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.
TOPLINE:
A national study in Israel demonstrates the feasibility and diagnostic benefits of rapid trio genome sequencing in critically ill neonates.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a prospective, multicenter cohort study from October 2021 to December 2022, involving all Israeli medical genetics institutes and neonatal intensive care units.
- A total of 130 critically ill neonates suspected of having a genetic disorder were enrolled, with rapid genome sequencing results expected within 10 days.
TAKEAWAY:
- Rapid trio genome sequencing diagnosed 50% of the neonates with disease-causing variants, including 12 chromosomal and 52 monogenic conditions.
- Another 11% had variants of unknown significance that were suspected to be disease-causing, and 1% had a novel gene suspected of causing disease.
- The mean turnaround time for the rapid reports was 7 days, demonstrating the feasibility of implementing rapid genome sequencing in a national healthcare setting, the researchers said.
- Genomic testing led to a change in clinical management for 22% of the neonates, which shows the clinical utility of this approach to diagnosis, they said.
IN PRACTICE:
Genetic testing may identify patients who are candidates for precision medical treatment and inform family planning, which is “critical for families with a severely affected or deceased child,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The corresponding author for the study was Daphna Marom, MD, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. It was published online on February 22, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s reliance on voluntary participation may have introduced referral bias, potentially affecting the diagnostic rates. The long-term impact of diagnosis on survival, growth, and development remains to be evaluated. Bioinformatics tools have limitations, as shown by the missed detection of maternal uniparental disomy in one case of a hypotonic infant with Prader-Willi syndrome, the researchers noted. Clinical judgment is still essential, they said.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was sponsored by a collaboration between the Israeli Ministry of Health, Illumina, and the Genomics Center at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. Illumina provided reagents, bioinformatics tools, and editorial assistance. Study authors disclosed financial ties to Illumina.
This article was created 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.
TOPLINE:
A national study in Israel demonstrates the feasibility and diagnostic benefits of rapid trio genome sequencing in critically ill neonates.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a prospective, multicenter cohort study from October 2021 to December 2022, involving all Israeli medical genetics institutes and neonatal intensive care units.
- A total of 130 critically ill neonates suspected of having a genetic disorder were enrolled, with rapid genome sequencing results expected within 10 days.
TAKEAWAY:
- Rapid trio genome sequencing diagnosed 50% of the neonates with disease-causing variants, including 12 chromosomal and 52 monogenic conditions.
- Another 11% had variants of unknown significance that were suspected to be disease-causing, and 1% had a novel gene suspected of causing disease.
- The mean turnaround time for the rapid reports was 7 days, demonstrating the feasibility of implementing rapid genome sequencing in a national healthcare setting, the researchers said.
- Genomic testing led to a change in clinical management for 22% of the neonates, which shows the clinical utility of this approach to diagnosis, they said.
IN PRACTICE:
Genetic testing may identify patients who are candidates for precision medical treatment and inform family planning, which is “critical for families with a severely affected or deceased child,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The corresponding author for the study was Daphna Marom, MD, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. It was published online on February 22, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s reliance on voluntary participation may have introduced referral bias, potentially affecting the diagnostic rates. The long-term impact of diagnosis on survival, growth, and development remains to be evaluated. Bioinformatics tools have limitations, as shown by the missed detection of maternal uniparental disomy in one case of a hypotonic infant with Prader-Willi syndrome, the researchers noted. Clinical judgment is still essential, they said.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was sponsored by a collaboration between the Israeli Ministry of Health, Illumina, and the Genomics Center at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. Illumina provided reagents, bioinformatics tools, and editorial assistance. Study authors disclosed financial ties to Illumina.
This article was created 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.
Florida’s Stance on Measles Upends Expert Guidance
Amid an ongoing measles outbreak in Florida possibly sparked by vaccine hesitancy, the state’s surgeon general Joseph Ladapo, MD, is contradicting public health guidance of encouraging quarantine of unvaccinated children.
Rather than requesting that parents keep children unvaccinated against measles home from school or to get their children vaccinated, both critical tools in containing an outbreak, Dr. Ladapo has advised parents to do whatever they think is best. Pediatricians and infectious disease specialists fear a free-for-all will fuel the spread of the highly infectious virus, including in their own clinics.
The outbreak has been traced to an elementary school in Weston and has so far sickened at least eight children, one of whom is younger than 5 years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, roughly 91% of the 230,000-odd kindergarteners in Florida had received the requisite doses of the MMR vaccine, which also protects against mumps and rubella, for the 2022-2023 school year, below the 95% vaccination level which public health authorities believes confers herd immunity against measles. An estimated 4.5% of kindergarteners in the state have received an exemption for the vaccine, which prevents measles in 97% of the people who get the shots, for a lifetime. The first dose is given around age 13 months and the second when people are age 4 or 5 years and soon to enter school.
“If you’re vaccinated you have a very slim chance of getting the virus,” said Rana Alissa, MD, a pediatrician at University of Florida Health in Jacksonville.
An unvaccinated child has no protection against measles, and could spread it to others merely by sneezing or touching a surface. In a school setting, infection could spread to a teacher who cannot receive the measles vaccine due to a weakened immune system, or the unvaccinated child could spread the virus at a pediatric clinic or hospital when seeking care for measles unless the clinic staff takes rigorous steps to separate the child from other children. Some children at the clinic won’t be able to get the measles vaccine either because of immunodeficiency or perhaps having had a bone marrow transplant.
Assuming the unvaccinated child is healthy, the measles infection will run its course, and the child will then be immune to the disease, Dr. Alissa said. But meanwhile, the child could pose a significant risk to others.
“We’re not worried about the unvaccinated kids who are very healthy. We’re worried about the adults who did not get vaccinated and who are very sick,” said Dr. Alissa, vice president of the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). “We’re worried about the little kids who are less than 13 months old. We’re worried about the kids with immunodeficiency disorders.” The Florida chapter of the AAP encourages parents to get their children vaccinated against measles amid the ongoing outbreak.
“I wish our surgeon general was on the same page as us,” Dr. Alissa added, noting that she thinks misplaced vaccine hesitancy has caused some parents to forego a safe and effective vaccine for their children.
Never Too Late to Vaxx
Measles symptoms appear 10-14 days after exposure and can include sore throat, cough, runny nose, inflamed eyes, fever, and blotchy skin rashes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 20% of people who are unvaccinated against measles will be hospitalized for the virus if they contract it.
Given the incubation period for the virus, clinicians and public health officials recommend unvaccinated children isolate for 21 days after being exposed to measles at school. The advice applies to any unvaccinated child, whether because their parent opted against the vaccine or because they cannot safely receive the immunization.
This is the guidance that Surgeon General Ladapo is flouting.
“We have a public health system. They’re awesome. They’re the experts. Let’s use them,” Dr. Alissa noted. “Their recommendation is to keep the unvaccinated kids at home for 21 days when you have an outbreak.”
“We’re not calling him doctor anymore,” said Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
“Getting your kids immunized before they enter school is so critical,” added Dr. Pavia, because the 21-day quarantine period is onerous for children and parents alike.
In a February 26 statement, Marcus Plescia, MD, MPH, chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, said “well-established public health practice recommends that unvaccinated persons exposed to measles stay home for at least 21 days to prevent further growth of the outbreak. While this is undoubtedly disruptive to the persons impacted, imagine how much more disruptive it would be if measles takes hold again in the United States, spreading widely, and impacting children and communities across the entire nation.”
During an outbreak, it’s still possible to give a measles vaccine to a child who has not yet received the shots, Dr. Pavia stressed. But time is of the essence: Vaccination should occur within 72 hours of the first known measles case in a school.
“It’s not perfect, they may still get measles, but it will greatly decrease the severity,” Dr. Pavia said.
If some children won’t get vaccinated during an outbreak, their parents may call a pediatrician or hospital staff for help as measles symptoms take hold. Clinicians should advise everyone in the home who is older than 2 years to begin wearing N95 masks and gloves, Dr. Alissa said. And when the child comes into the clinic he or she should be examined in a separate room, ideally one with negative air pressure and frequent filtration, Dr. Alissa added. If not, any private room will do if nobody else uses the room for at least 2 hours afterward.
“Measles is phenomenally transmissible,” Dr. Pavia said. A person with the virus can infect 12 to 18 others who are not protected against the pathogen.
Someone with a severe reaction to measles could get an injection of intramuscular immunoglobulin, Dr. Pavia said, although this tends to be uncomfortable and expensive.
“The vaccine works. We almost got rid of measles,” Dr. Alissa said, although parents who choose to send their unvaccinated children to school can do so if they choose to.
“The fear of every pediatrician is to have a child die from this,” she said. “People who are sick, please stay at home.”
Dr. Pavia reported an advisory relationship with Sanofi Pasteur regarding an RSV vaccine. Dr. Alissa reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Amid an ongoing measles outbreak in Florida possibly sparked by vaccine hesitancy, the state’s surgeon general Joseph Ladapo, MD, is contradicting public health guidance of encouraging quarantine of unvaccinated children.
Rather than requesting that parents keep children unvaccinated against measles home from school or to get their children vaccinated, both critical tools in containing an outbreak, Dr. Ladapo has advised parents to do whatever they think is best. Pediatricians and infectious disease specialists fear a free-for-all will fuel the spread of the highly infectious virus, including in their own clinics.
The outbreak has been traced to an elementary school in Weston and has so far sickened at least eight children, one of whom is younger than 5 years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, roughly 91% of the 230,000-odd kindergarteners in Florida had received the requisite doses of the MMR vaccine, which also protects against mumps and rubella, for the 2022-2023 school year, below the 95% vaccination level which public health authorities believes confers herd immunity against measles. An estimated 4.5% of kindergarteners in the state have received an exemption for the vaccine, which prevents measles in 97% of the people who get the shots, for a lifetime. The first dose is given around age 13 months and the second when people are age 4 or 5 years and soon to enter school.
“If you’re vaccinated you have a very slim chance of getting the virus,” said Rana Alissa, MD, a pediatrician at University of Florida Health in Jacksonville.
An unvaccinated child has no protection against measles, and could spread it to others merely by sneezing or touching a surface. In a school setting, infection could spread to a teacher who cannot receive the measles vaccine due to a weakened immune system, or the unvaccinated child could spread the virus at a pediatric clinic or hospital when seeking care for measles unless the clinic staff takes rigorous steps to separate the child from other children. Some children at the clinic won’t be able to get the measles vaccine either because of immunodeficiency or perhaps having had a bone marrow transplant.
Assuming the unvaccinated child is healthy, the measles infection will run its course, and the child will then be immune to the disease, Dr. Alissa said. But meanwhile, the child could pose a significant risk to others.
“We’re not worried about the unvaccinated kids who are very healthy. We’re worried about the adults who did not get vaccinated and who are very sick,” said Dr. Alissa, vice president of the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). “We’re worried about the little kids who are less than 13 months old. We’re worried about the kids with immunodeficiency disorders.” The Florida chapter of the AAP encourages parents to get their children vaccinated against measles amid the ongoing outbreak.
“I wish our surgeon general was on the same page as us,” Dr. Alissa added, noting that she thinks misplaced vaccine hesitancy has caused some parents to forego a safe and effective vaccine for their children.
Never Too Late to Vaxx
Measles symptoms appear 10-14 days after exposure and can include sore throat, cough, runny nose, inflamed eyes, fever, and blotchy skin rashes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 20% of people who are unvaccinated against measles will be hospitalized for the virus if they contract it.
Given the incubation period for the virus, clinicians and public health officials recommend unvaccinated children isolate for 21 days after being exposed to measles at school. The advice applies to any unvaccinated child, whether because their parent opted against the vaccine or because they cannot safely receive the immunization.
This is the guidance that Surgeon General Ladapo is flouting.
“We have a public health system. They’re awesome. They’re the experts. Let’s use them,” Dr. Alissa noted. “Their recommendation is to keep the unvaccinated kids at home for 21 days when you have an outbreak.”
“We’re not calling him doctor anymore,” said Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
“Getting your kids immunized before they enter school is so critical,” added Dr. Pavia, because the 21-day quarantine period is onerous for children and parents alike.
In a February 26 statement, Marcus Plescia, MD, MPH, chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, said “well-established public health practice recommends that unvaccinated persons exposed to measles stay home for at least 21 days to prevent further growth of the outbreak. While this is undoubtedly disruptive to the persons impacted, imagine how much more disruptive it would be if measles takes hold again in the United States, spreading widely, and impacting children and communities across the entire nation.”
During an outbreak, it’s still possible to give a measles vaccine to a child who has not yet received the shots, Dr. Pavia stressed. But time is of the essence: Vaccination should occur within 72 hours of the first known measles case in a school.
“It’s not perfect, they may still get measles, but it will greatly decrease the severity,” Dr. Pavia said.
If some children won’t get vaccinated during an outbreak, their parents may call a pediatrician or hospital staff for help as measles symptoms take hold. Clinicians should advise everyone in the home who is older than 2 years to begin wearing N95 masks and gloves, Dr. Alissa said. And when the child comes into the clinic he or she should be examined in a separate room, ideally one with negative air pressure and frequent filtration, Dr. Alissa added. If not, any private room will do if nobody else uses the room for at least 2 hours afterward.
“Measles is phenomenally transmissible,” Dr. Pavia said. A person with the virus can infect 12 to 18 others who are not protected against the pathogen.
Someone with a severe reaction to measles could get an injection of intramuscular immunoglobulin, Dr. Pavia said, although this tends to be uncomfortable and expensive.
“The vaccine works. We almost got rid of measles,” Dr. Alissa said, although parents who choose to send their unvaccinated children to school can do so if they choose to.
“The fear of every pediatrician is to have a child die from this,” she said. “People who are sick, please stay at home.”
Dr. Pavia reported an advisory relationship with Sanofi Pasteur regarding an RSV vaccine. Dr. Alissa reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Amid an ongoing measles outbreak in Florida possibly sparked by vaccine hesitancy, the state’s surgeon general Joseph Ladapo, MD, is contradicting public health guidance of encouraging quarantine of unvaccinated children.
Rather than requesting that parents keep children unvaccinated against measles home from school or to get their children vaccinated, both critical tools in containing an outbreak, Dr. Ladapo has advised parents to do whatever they think is best. Pediatricians and infectious disease specialists fear a free-for-all will fuel the spread of the highly infectious virus, including in their own clinics.
The outbreak has been traced to an elementary school in Weston and has so far sickened at least eight children, one of whom is younger than 5 years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, roughly 91% of the 230,000-odd kindergarteners in Florida had received the requisite doses of the MMR vaccine, which also protects against mumps and rubella, for the 2022-2023 school year, below the 95% vaccination level which public health authorities believes confers herd immunity against measles. An estimated 4.5% of kindergarteners in the state have received an exemption for the vaccine, which prevents measles in 97% of the people who get the shots, for a lifetime. The first dose is given around age 13 months and the second when people are age 4 or 5 years and soon to enter school.
“If you’re vaccinated you have a very slim chance of getting the virus,” said Rana Alissa, MD, a pediatrician at University of Florida Health in Jacksonville.
An unvaccinated child has no protection against measles, and could spread it to others merely by sneezing or touching a surface. In a school setting, infection could spread to a teacher who cannot receive the measles vaccine due to a weakened immune system, or the unvaccinated child could spread the virus at a pediatric clinic or hospital when seeking care for measles unless the clinic staff takes rigorous steps to separate the child from other children. Some children at the clinic won’t be able to get the measles vaccine either because of immunodeficiency or perhaps having had a bone marrow transplant.
Assuming the unvaccinated child is healthy, the measles infection will run its course, and the child will then be immune to the disease, Dr. Alissa said. But meanwhile, the child could pose a significant risk to others.
“We’re not worried about the unvaccinated kids who are very healthy. We’re worried about the adults who did not get vaccinated and who are very sick,” said Dr. Alissa, vice president of the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). “We’re worried about the little kids who are less than 13 months old. We’re worried about the kids with immunodeficiency disorders.” The Florida chapter of the AAP encourages parents to get their children vaccinated against measles amid the ongoing outbreak.
“I wish our surgeon general was on the same page as us,” Dr. Alissa added, noting that she thinks misplaced vaccine hesitancy has caused some parents to forego a safe and effective vaccine for their children.
Never Too Late to Vaxx
Measles symptoms appear 10-14 days after exposure and can include sore throat, cough, runny nose, inflamed eyes, fever, and blotchy skin rashes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 20% of people who are unvaccinated against measles will be hospitalized for the virus if they contract it.
Given the incubation period for the virus, clinicians and public health officials recommend unvaccinated children isolate for 21 days after being exposed to measles at school. The advice applies to any unvaccinated child, whether because their parent opted against the vaccine or because they cannot safely receive the immunization.
This is the guidance that Surgeon General Ladapo is flouting.
“We have a public health system. They’re awesome. They’re the experts. Let’s use them,” Dr. Alissa noted. “Their recommendation is to keep the unvaccinated kids at home for 21 days when you have an outbreak.”
“We’re not calling him doctor anymore,” said Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
“Getting your kids immunized before they enter school is so critical,” added Dr. Pavia, because the 21-day quarantine period is onerous for children and parents alike.
In a February 26 statement, Marcus Plescia, MD, MPH, chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, said “well-established public health practice recommends that unvaccinated persons exposed to measles stay home for at least 21 days to prevent further growth of the outbreak. While this is undoubtedly disruptive to the persons impacted, imagine how much more disruptive it would be if measles takes hold again in the United States, spreading widely, and impacting children and communities across the entire nation.”
During an outbreak, it’s still possible to give a measles vaccine to a child who has not yet received the shots, Dr. Pavia stressed. But time is of the essence: Vaccination should occur within 72 hours of the first known measles case in a school.
“It’s not perfect, they may still get measles, but it will greatly decrease the severity,” Dr. Pavia said.
If some children won’t get vaccinated during an outbreak, their parents may call a pediatrician or hospital staff for help as measles symptoms take hold. Clinicians should advise everyone in the home who is older than 2 years to begin wearing N95 masks and gloves, Dr. Alissa said. And when the child comes into the clinic he or she should be examined in a separate room, ideally one with negative air pressure and frequent filtration, Dr. Alissa added. If not, any private room will do if nobody else uses the room for at least 2 hours afterward.
“Measles is phenomenally transmissible,” Dr. Pavia said. A person with the virus can infect 12 to 18 others who are not protected against the pathogen.
Someone with a severe reaction to measles could get an injection of intramuscular immunoglobulin, Dr. Pavia said, although this tends to be uncomfortable and expensive.
“The vaccine works. We almost got rid of measles,” Dr. Alissa said, although parents who choose to send their unvaccinated children to school can do so if they choose to.
“The fear of every pediatrician is to have a child die from this,” she said. “People who are sick, please stay at home.”
Dr. Pavia reported an advisory relationship with Sanofi Pasteur regarding an RSV vaccine. Dr. Alissa reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Trials in Leukemia and Lymphoma: Could Your Patient Benefit?
Several clinical trials in leukemia and lymphoma have started enrolling recently. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from taking part?
run by the Center for International Blood and Bone Marrow Transplant Research.
The purpose of the study is to test whether cyclophosphamide, which is given to prevent a dreaded complication of stem cell transplantation called graft-versus-host disease, can be safely reduced without increasing infection or reducing protection. All participants will receive cyclophosphamide on days 3 and 4 post transplant. One group will receive a reduced dose of cyclophosphamide (25 mg/kg per dose), and the other will be given a usual dose (37.5 mg/kg).
Sites in Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington started recruiting for 190 participants in December 2023. Study centers in Florida, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin are also planned. Infection-free survival is the primary endpoint, and overall survival is a secondary measure. Quality of life (QoL) is not recorded. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). Adults who are newly diagnosed with this type of cancer and have active disease may wish to consider a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial testing an experimental Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, nemtabrutinib (from Merck Sharp & Dohme), against standard-of-care BTK inhibitors ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and acalabrutinib (Calquence).
BTK inhibitors target B-cell proliferation in B-cell cancers such as CLL/SLL and allow for chemotherapy-free treatment of some hematological malignancies. In this study, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or another reason for discontinuation occurs, participants will take daily oral nemtabrutinib, ibrutinib, or acalabrutinib.
The study opened in December 2023 in Pennsylvania, Washington, Taiwan, Israel, and the United Kingdom seeking 1200 participants. The primary outcomes are objective response rate and progression-free survival. Overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL is not measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Relapsed or refractory leukemia with a KMT2A-gene rearrangement (KMT2A-r). Children aged 1 month to younger than 6 years with this diagnosis may be able to join an open-label, nonrandomized, Children’s Oncology Group phase 2 study to determine the most tolerable and/or effective dose of an experimental oral drug called revumenib when added to chemotherapy.
KMT2A-gene alterations are associated with a poor prognosis in leukemia. These alterations cause blood cells to dedifferentiate and start proliferating uncontrollably as leukemia cells. The expression of the damaged KMT2A gene relies on a protein called menin. Revumenib, from Syndax Pharmaceuticals, blocks menin and prevents expression of KMT2A.
Children in the study will receive two different regimens of revumenib in combination with chemotherapy for up to a year, or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, and will then be followed for up to 5 years. Trial centers in 12 US states opened their doors in January 2024 looking for 78 participants. Toxicities and minimal residual disease are the primary outcomes; overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL is not assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Previously untreated follicular lymphoma or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Adults with one of these types of lymphoma may be eligible for one of three open-label, randomized, phase 3 trials testing odronextamab (from Regeneron). This bispecific antibody is designed to ‘lock together’ CD20 on cancer cells with CD3-expressing cancer-killing T cells. It has shown anti-lymphoma activity in heavily pretreated patients.
Late in 2023, three phase 3 trials turned the spotlight on treatment-naive patients and started recruiting 2115 participants to assess odronextamab in this setting. The trial OLYMPIA-1 will compare odronextamab with standard-of-care rituximab (Rituxan) plus chemotherapy in follicular lymphoma. OLYMPIA-2 will test the drug in combination with chemotherapy, also in follicular lymphoma. OLYMPIA-3 will evaluate odronextamab plus chemotherapy against rituximab and chemotherapy in people with large B-cell lymphoma.
All study drugs, including odronextamab, will be administered by intravenous infusion, and participants will be followed for up to 5 years. Research centers across eight US states and Australia, Czechia, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey, and Thailand are currently accepting participants for the three trials. The primary outcomes are various measures of toxicity and complete response at 30 months in the follicular lymphoma studies and toxicity and progression-free survival in large B-cell lymphoma. All three trials are measuring overall survival and QoL as secondary endpoints.
Previously untreated stage II, III, or IV follicular lymphoma. Adults with this type of cancer may be eligible to participate in a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study testing whether an experimental therapy called epcoritamab (from AbbVie) improves disease response and is tolerable when added to standard therapy. For up to 120 weeks, one group of participants will receive a combination of intravenous rituximab and oral lenalidomide (Revlimid), while a second group will also receive subcutaneous injections of epcoritamab. Some participants may be offered investigators’ choice of chemotherapy as well.
Sites across Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Washington, and Montana started welcoming their 900 participants in February 2024. The primary outcome is complete response at 30 months. Overall survival and QoL are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Adults facing one of these clinical scenarios can join an Academic and Community Cancer Research United open label, phase 2 trial examining the effectiveness of combining tafasitamab (Monjuvi), lenalidomide, and venetoclax (Venclexta) for such patients.
Frontline therapy does not cure mantle cell lymphoma, and continued relapses are common. In this situation, treatments can include acalabrutinib, ibrutinib, stem cell transplantation, venetoclax, lenalidomide, and rituximab.
In this study, participants will take venetoclax and lenalidomide daily and receive intravenous tafasitamab every 2 weeks after an initial ramp-up period as per clinic standards. Participants will be followed for 5 years after entering the trial. The Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, began recruiting the planned 100 trial participants in January 2024. The primary outcome is objective response rate; overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Several clinical trials in leukemia and lymphoma have started enrolling recently. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from taking part?
run by the Center for International Blood and Bone Marrow Transplant Research.
The purpose of the study is to test whether cyclophosphamide, which is given to prevent a dreaded complication of stem cell transplantation called graft-versus-host disease, can be safely reduced without increasing infection or reducing protection. All participants will receive cyclophosphamide on days 3 and 4 post transplant. One group will receive a reduced dose of cyclophosphamide (25 mg/kg per dose), and the other will be given a usual dose (37.5 mg/kg).
Sites in Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington started recruiting for 190 participants in December 2023. Study centers in Florida, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin are also planned. Infection-free survival is the primary endpoint, and overall survival is a secondary measure. Quality of life (QoL) is not recorded. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). Adults who are newly diagnosed with this type of cancer and have active disease may wish to consider a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial testing an experimental Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, nemtabrutinib (from Merck Sharp & Dohme), against standard-of-care BTK inhibitors ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and acalabrutinib (Calquence).
BTK inhibitors target B-cell proliferation in B-cell cancers such as CLL/SLL and allow for chemotherapy-free treatment of some hematological malignancies. In this study, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or another reason for discontinuation occurs, participants will take daily oral nemtabrutinib, ibrutinib, or acalabrutinib.
The study opened in December 2023 in Pennsylvania, Washington, Taiwan, Israel, and the United Kingdom seeking 1200 participants. The primary outcomes are objective response rate and progression-free survival. Overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL is not measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Relapsed or refractory leukemia with a KMT2A-gene rearrangement (KMT2A-r). Children aged 1 month to younger than 6 years with this diagnosis may be able to join an open-label, nonrandomized, Children’s Oncology Group phase 2 study to determine the most tolerable and/or effective dose of an experimental oral drug called revumenib when added to chemotherapy.
KMT2A-gene alterations are associated with a poor prognosis in leukemia. These alterations cause blood cells to dedifferentiate and start proliferating uncontrollably as leukemia cells. The expression of the damaged KMT2A gene relies on a protein called menin. Revumenib, from Syndax Pharmaceuticals, blocks menin and prevents expression of KMT2A.
Children in the study will receive two different regimens of revumenib in combination with chemotherapy for up to a year, or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, and will then be followed for up to 5 years. Trial centers in 12 US states opened their doors in January 2024 looking for 78 participants. Toxicities and minimal residual disease are the primary outcomes; overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL is not assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Previously untreated follicular lymphoma or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Adults with one of these types of lymphoma may be eligible for one of three open-label, randomized, phase 3 trials testing odronextamab (from Regeneron). This bispecific antibody is designed to ‘lock together’ CD20 on cancer cells with CD3-expressing cancer-killing T cells. It has shown anti-lymphoma activity in heavily pretreated patients.
Late in 2023, three phase 3 trials turned the spotlight on treatment-naive patients and started recruiting 2115 participants to assess odronextamab in this setting. The trial OLYMPIA-1 will compare odronextamab with standard-of-care rituximab (Rituxan) plus chemotherapy in follicular lymphoma. OLYMPIA-2 will test the drug in combination with chemotherapy, also in follicular lymphoma. OLYMPIA-3 will evaluate odronextamab plus chemotherapy against rituximab and chemotherapy in people with large B-cell lymphoma.
All study drugs, including odronextamab, will be administered by intravenous infusion, and participants will be followed for up to 5 years. Research centers across eight US states and Australia, Czechia, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey, and Thailand are currently accepting participants for the three trials. The primary outcomes are various measures of toxicity and complete response at 30 months in the follicular lymphoma studies and toxicity and progression-free survival in large B-cell lymphoma. All three trials are measuring overall survival and QoL as secondary endpoints.
Previously untreated stage II, III, or IV follicular lymphoma. Adults with this type of cancer may be eligible to participate in a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study testing whether an experimental therapy called epcoritamab (from AbbVie) improves disease response and is tolerable when added to standard therapy. For up to 120 weeks, one group of participants will receive a combination of intravenous rituximab and oral lenalidomide (Revlimid), while a second group will also receive subcutaneous injections of epcoritamab. Some participants may be offered investigators’ choice of chemotherapy as well.
Sites across Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Washington, and Montana started welcoming their 900 participants in February 2024. The primary outcome is complete response at 30 months. Overall survival and QoL are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Adults facing one of these clinical scenarios can join an Academic and Community Cancer Research United open label, phase 2 trial examining the effectiveness of combining tafasitamab (Monjuvi), lenalidomide, and venetoclax (Venclexta) for such patients.
Frontline therapy does not cure mantle cell lymphoma, and continued relapses are common. In this situation, treatments can include acalabrutinib, ibrutinib, stem cell transplantation, venetoclax, lenalidomide, and rituximab.
In this study, participants will take venetoclax and lenalidomide daily and receive intravenous tafasitamab every 2 weeks after an initial ramp-up period as per clinic standards. Participants will be followed for 5 years after entering the trial. The Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, began recruiting the planned 100 trial participants in January 2024. The primary outcome is objective response rate; overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Several clinical trials in leukemia and lymphoma have started enrolling recently. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from taking part?
run by the Center for International Blood and Bone Marrow Transplant Research.
The purpose of the study is to test whether cyclophosphamide, which is given to prevent a dreaded complication of stem cell transplantation called graft-versus-host disease, can be safely reduced without increasing infection or reducing protection. All participants will receive cyclophosphamide on days 3 and 4 post transplant. One group will receive a reduced dose of cyclophosphamide (25 mg/kg per dose), and the other will be given a usual dose (37.5 mg/kg).
Sites in Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington started recruiting for 190 participants in December 2023. Study centers in Florida, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin are also planned. Infection-free survival is the primary endpoint, and overall survival is a secondary measure. Quality of life (QoL) is not recorded. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). Adults who are newly diagnosed with this type of cancer and have active disease may wish to consider a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial testing an experimental Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, nemtabrutinib (from Merck Sharp & Dohme), against standard-of-care BTK inhibitors ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and acalabrutinib (Calquence).
BTK inhibitors target B-cell proliferation in B-cell cancers such as CLL/SLL and allow for chemotherapy-free treatment of some hematological malignancies. In this study, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or another reason for discontinuation occurs, participants will take daily oral nemtabrutinib, ibrutinib, or acalabrutinib.
The study opened in December 2023 in Pennsylvania, Washington, Taiwan, Israel, and the United Kingdom seeking 1200 participants. The primary outcomes are objective response rate and progression-free survival. Overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL is not measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Relapsed or refractory leukemia with a KMT2A-gene rearrangement (KMT2A-r). Children aged 1 month to younger than 6 years with this diagnosis may be able to join an open-label, nonrandomized, Children’s Oncology Group phase 2 study to determine the most tolerable and/or effective dose of an experimental oral drug called revumenib when added to chemotherapy.
KMT2A-gene alterations are associated with a poor prognosis in leukemia. These alterations cause blood cells to dedifferentiate and start proliferating uncontrollably as leukemia cells. The expression of the damaged KMT2A gene relies on a protein called menin. Revumenib, from Syndax Pharmaceuticals, blocks menin and prevents expression of KMT2A.
Children in the study will receive two different regimens of revumenib in combination with chemotherapy for up to a year, or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, and will then be followed for up to 5 years. Trial centers in 12 US states opened their doors in January 2024 looking for 78 participants. Toxicities and minimal residual disease are the primary outcomes; overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL is not assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Previously untreated follicular lymphoma or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Adults with one of these types of lymphoma may be eligible for one of three open-label, randomized, phase 3 trials testing odronextamab (from Regeneron). This bispecific antibody is designed to ‘lock together’ CD20 on cancer cells with CD3-expressing cancer-killing T cells. It has shown anti-lymphoma activity in heavily pretreated patients.
Late in 2023, three phase 3 trials turned the spotlight on treatment-naive patients and started recruiting 2115 participants to assess odronextamab in this setting. The trial OLYMPIA-1 will compare odronextamab with standard-of-care rituximab (Rituxan) plus chemotherapy in follicular lymphoma. OLYMPIA-2 will test the drug in combination with chemotherapy, also in follicular lymphoma. OLYMPIA-3 will evaluate odronextamab plus chemotherapy against rituximab and chemotherapy in people with large B-cell lymphoma.
All study drugs, including odronextamab, will be administered by intravenous infusion, and participants will be followed for up to 5 years. Research centers across eight US states and Australia, Czechia, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey, and Thailand are currently accepting participants for the three trials. The primary outcomes are various measures of toxicity and complete response at 30 months in the follicular lymphoma studies and toxicity and progression-free survival in large B-cell lymphoma. All three trials are measuring overall survival and QoL as secondary endpoints.
Previously untreated stage II, III, or IV follicular lymphoma. Adults with this type of cancer may be eligible to participate in a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study testing whether an experimental therapy called epcoritamab (from AbbVie) improves disease response and is tolerable when added to standard therapy. For up to 120 weeks, one group of participants will receive a combination of intravenous rituximab and oral lenalidomide (Revlimid), while a second group will also receive subcutaneous injections of epcoritamab. Some participants may be offered investigators’ choice of chemotherapy as well.
Sites across Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Washington, and Montana started welcoming their 900 participants in February 2024. The primary outcome is complete response at 30 months. Overall survival and QoL are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Adults facing one of these clinical scenarios can join an Academic and Community Cancer Research United open label, phase 2 trial examining the effectiveness of combining tafasitamab (Monjuvi), lenalidomide, and venetoclax (Venclexta) for such patients.
Frontline therapy does not cure mantle cell lymphoma, and continued relapses are common. In this situation, treatments can include acalabrutinib, ibrutinib, stem cell transplantation, venetoclax, lenalidomide, and rituximab.
In this study, participants will take venetoclax and lenalidomide daily and receive intravenous tafasitamab every 2 weeks after an initial ramp-up period as per clinic standards. Participants will be followed for 5 years after entering the trial. The Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, began recruiting the planned 100 trial participants in January 2024. The primary outcome is objective response rate; overall survival is a secondary outcome, and QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
FDA Approves 10th Humira Biosimilar, With Interchangeability
The US Food and Drug Administration has approved the first interchangeable, high-concentration, citrate-free adalimumab biosimilar, adalimumab-ryvk (Simlandi).
This is the 10th adalimumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first biosimilar approval in the US market for the Icelandic pharmaceutical company Alvotech in partnership with Teva Pharmaceuticals.
“An interchangeable citrate-free, high-concentration biosimilar adalimumab has the potential to change the market dynamics in a rapidly evolving environment for biosimilars in the U.S.,” said Robert Wessman, chairman and CEO of Alvotech, in a company press release on February 23.
Adalimumab-ryvk was approved in the European Union in 2021 and in Australia and Canada in 2022.
Adalimumab-ryvk is indicated for adults with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, plaque psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis and panuveitis. In pediatric patients, it is indicated for polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in children 2 years of age and older and Crohn’s disease in children 6 years of age and older.
Adalimumab-ryvk is the third Humira biosimilar overall granted interchangeability status, which allows pharmacists (depending on state law) to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician. Adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), manufactured by Boehringer Ingelheim, and adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada), manufactured by Pfizer, were previously granted interchangeability status; however, they both are interchangeable with the low-concentration formulation of Humira, which make up only an estimated 15% of Humira prescriptions, according to a report by Goodroot.
Adalimumab-ryvk will be launched “imminently” in the United States, according to the press release, but no specific dates were provided. It is also not yet known how the biosimilar will be priced compared with Humira. Other adalimumab biosimilars have launched with discounts from 5% to 85% of Humira’s list price.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration has approved the first interchangeable, high-concentration, citrate-free adalimumab biosimilar, adalimumab-ryvk (Simlandi).
This is the 10th adalimumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first biosimilar approval in the US market for the Icelandic pharmaceutical company Alvotech in partnership with Teva Pharmaceuticals.
“An interchangeable citrate-free, high-concentration biosimilar adalimumab has the potential to change the market dynamics in a rapidly evolving environment for biosimilars in the U.S.,” said Robert Wessman, chairman and CEO of Alvotech, in a company press release on February 23.
Adalimumab-ryvk was approved in the European Union in 2021 and in Australia and Canada in 2022.
Adalimumab-ryvk is indicated for adults with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, plaque psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis and panuveitis. In pediatric patients, it is indicated for polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in children 2 years of age and older and Crohn’s disease in children 6 years of age and older.
Adalimumab-ryvk is the third Humira biosimilar overall granted interchangeability status, which allows pharmacists (depending on state law) to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician. Adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), manufactured by Boehringer Ingelheim, and adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada), manufactured by Pfizer, were previously granted interchangeability status; however, they both are interchangeable with the low-concentration formulation of Humira, which make up only an estimated 15% of Humira prescriptions, according to a report by Goodroot.
Adalimumab-ryvk will be launched “imminently” in the United States, according to the press release, but no specific dates were provided. It is also not yet known how the biosimilar will be priced compared with Humira. Other adalimumab biosimilars have launched with discounts from 5% to 85% of Humira’s list price.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration has approved the first interchangeable, high-concentration, citrate-free adalimumab biosimilar, adalimumab-ryvk (Simlandi).
This is the 10th adalimumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first biosimilar approval in the US market for the Icelandic pharmaceutical company Alvotech in partnership with Teva Pharmaceuticals.
“An interchangeable citrate-free, high-concentration biosimilar adalimumab has the potential to change the market dynamics in a rapidly evolving environment for biosimilars in the U.S.,” said Robert Wessman, chairman and CEO of Alvotech, in a company press release on February 23.
Adalimumab-ryvk was approved in the European Union in 2021 and in Australia and Canada in 2022.
Adalimumab-ryvk is indicated for adults with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, plaque psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis and panuveitis. In pediatric patients, it is indicated for polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in children 2 years of age and older and Crohn’s disease in children 6 years of age and older.
Adalimumab-ryvk is the third Humira biosimilar overall granted interchangeability status, which allows pharmacists (depending on state law) to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician. Adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), manufactured by Boehringer Ingelheim, and adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada), manufactured by Pfizer, were previously granted interchangeability status; however, they both are interchangeable with the low-concentration formulation of Humira, which make up only an estimated 15% of Humira prescriptions, according to a report by Goodroot.
Adalimumab-ryvk will be launched “imminently” in the United States, according to the press release, but no specific dates were provided. It is also not yet known how the biosimilar will be priced compared with Humira. Other adalimumab biosimilars have launched with discounts from 5% to 85% of Humira’s list price.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Few Pediatricians Comfortable Treating Youth With OUD
An estimated 1 in 100 adolescents ages 12-17 years in the United States have an opioid use disorder (OUD). But fewer than 5% of adolescents with OUD get buprenorphine or naltrexone, though the treatments are recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), new data show.
Meanwhile, adolescent drug overdose deaths more than doubled between 2019 and 2021, with most involving opioids.
Scott E. Hadland, MD, MPH, with the Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine at Mass General for Children in Boston, and colleagues detailed the extent of the treatment gap and barriers to prescribing and caring for youth with OUD in primary care in a research letter published February 26 in JAMA Pediatrics.
Dr. Hadland’s team mailed 1,681 US pediatricians a survey and the response rate was 43.0%. Researchers included in the sample 474 primary care pediatricians who care for adolescents.
Who Should Treat OUD?
Most respondents (average age, 49.5; 74.0% female) agreed or strongly agreed that it is their responsibility to identify substance use disorders (93.9%) and refer patients to treatment (97.4%).
Fewer agreed or strongly agreed that it is their responsibility to treat substance use disorders (20.3%) or prescribe medications (12.4%). Fewer than half of the respondents said they felt prepared or very prepared to counsel adolescents on opioid use (48.3%) compared with those comfortable counseling on alcohol (87.1%), cannabis (81.7%), and e-cigarette use (80.1%; P < .001).
Pediatricians were less likely to provide counseling (63.0%) and more likely to refer patients to care off-site (71.8%) for opioid use than for alcohol (87.7% and 51.7%); cannabis (88.9% and 45.4%); or e-cigarette use (91.6% and 26.5%) (P < .001 for all comparisons).
Training Lacking in Residency Programs
“These results reveal an opportunity for greater workforce training in line with a 2019 survey showing fewer than 1 in 3 US pediatric residency programs included education on prescribing OUD medications,” the authors wrote. Training focused on treating OUD in primary care, including prescribing medications and addressing possible misperceptions, may be needed,” they noted.
The survey predated the elimination in 2023 of the federal buprenorphine waiver requirement, which made prescribing buprenorphine easier, so these results do not reflect any changes from that elimination, they wrote.
Sharon Levy, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Addiction Medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not part of this study, said more education on addiction medicine is needed for general pediatricians.
She said it’s time to push beyond the current framework of Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), because that doesn’t include “prescribing medications to manage withdrawal or suppress cravings or the use of lab testing, both of which could be accomplished in primary care.”
Dr. Levy said she considers substance use disorders the same way she considers other chronic conditions: Most patients can be treated in primary care. “Specialty care and higher levels of care need to be available for patients who are most complicated and/or having a flare of their condition.”
“In my opinion, most teens with opioid use disorder can and should be treated in primary care. I worry about referring teens with opioid use disorder to get medication somewhere else because there are few places that deliver this service to this age group. Additionally, teens and families are not always willing to pursue a referral, and many will get lost along the way.”
Promising Models
At Boston Children’s, she said, the Division of Addiction Medicine has created a consultation call line that primary care providers can call for help with any questions about teen substance use.
After running the consultation for about a year, she said, the program wanted to add ways to help patients directly and hired and trained social workers who can see pediatric patients with substance use problems for counseling via telemedicine. “The program also now supports group therapy for pediatric patients and parents, so that primary care providers can refer patients directly to group therapy,” Dr. Levy said.
The growth of telehealth since the pandemic may allow for new models of care.
“For example, now our Adolescent Substance Use and Addiction Program at Boston Children’s Hospital can provide services, including medication induction and follow-up, virtually,” Dr. Levy said. “This allows us to treat young people anywhere in the state. There have been instances in which a primary care provider referred us patients with OUD and then partnered with us, including performing physicals for teens who could not get to Boston to see us in person. At the end of the day, the more models we can come up with the better.”
Dr. Hadland reported honoraria from the AAP outside the submitted work. Two coauthors reported receiving salary support from the AAP during the conduct of the study. A coauthor reported serving as the chair of the AAP Committee on Substance Use and Prevention outside the submitted work. This work was supported by a grant from the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation via the AAP. Dr. Sharon Levy’s husband, Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, is director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital.
An estimated 1 in 100 adolescents ages 12-17 years in the United States have an opioid use disorder (OUD). But fewer than 5% of adolescents with OUD get buprenorphine or naltrexone, though the treatments are recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), new data show.
Meanwhile, adolescent drug overdose deaths more than doubled between 2019 and 2021, with most involving opioids.
Scott E. Hadland, MD, MPH, with the Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine at Mass General for Children in Boston, and colleagues detailed the extent of the treatment gap and barriers to prescribing and caring for youth with OUD in primary care in a research letter published February 26 in JAMA Pediatrics.
Dr. Hadland’s team mailed 1,681 US pediatricians a survey and the response rate was 43.0%. Researchers included in the sample 474 primary care pediatricians who care for adolescents.
Who Should Treat OUD?
Most respondents (average age, 49.5; 74.0% female) agreed or strongly agreed that it is their responsibility to identify substance use disorders (93.9%) and refer patients to treatment (97.4%).
Fewer agreed or strongly agreed that it is their responsibility to treat substance use disorders (20.3%) or prescribe medications (12.4%). Fewer than half of the respondents said they felt prepared or very prepared to counsel adolescents on opioid use (48.3%) compared with those comfortable counseling on alcohol (87.1%), cannabis (81.7%), and e-cigarette use (80.1%; P < .001).
Pediatricians were less likely to provide counseling (63.0%) and more likely to refer patients to care off-site (71.8%) for opioid use than for alcohol (87.7% and 51.7%); cannabis (88.9% and 45.4%); or e-cigarette use (91.6% and 26.5%) (P < .001 for all comparisons).
Training Lacking in Residency Programs
“These results reveal an opportunity for greater workforce training in line with a 2019 survey showing fewer than 1 in 3 US pediatric residency programs included education on prescribing OUD medications,” the authors wrote. Training focused on treating OUD in primary care, including prescribing medications and addressing possible misperceptions, may be needed,” they noted.
The survey predated the elimination in 2023 of the federal buprenorphine waiver requirement, which made prescribing buprenorphine easier, so these results do not reflect any changes from that elimination, they wrote.
Sharon Levy, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Addiction Medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not part of this study, said more education on addiction medicine is needed for general pediatricians.
She said it’s time to push beyond the current framework of Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), because that doesn’t include “prescribing medications to manage withdrawal or suppress cravings or the use of lab testing, both of which could be accomplished in primary care.”
Dr. Levy said she considers substance use disorders the same way she considers other chronic conditions: Most patients can be treated in primary care. “Specialty care and higher levels of care need to be available for patients who are most complicated and/or having a flare of their condition.”
“In my opinion, most teens with opioid use disorder can and should be treated in primary care. I worry about referring teens with opioid use disorder to get medication somewhere else because there are few places that deliver this service to this age group. Additionally, teens and families are not always willing to pursue a referral, and many will get lost along the way.”
Promising Models
At Boston Children’s, she said, the Division of Addiction Medicine has created a consultation call line that primary care providers can call for help with any questions about teen substance use.
After running the consultation for about a year, she said, the program wanted to add ways to help patients directly and hired and trained social workers who can see pediatric patients with substance use problems for counseling via telemedicine. “The program also now supports group therapy for pediatric patients and parents, so that primary care providers can refer patients directly to group therapy,” Dr. Levy said.
The growth of telehealth since the pandemic may allow for new models of care.
“For example, now our Adolescent Substance Use and Addiction Program at Boston Children’s Hospital can provide services, including medication induction and follow-up, virtually,” Dr. Levy said. “This allows us to treat young people anywhere in the state. There have been instances in which a primary care provider referred us patients with OUD and then partnered with us, including performing physicals for teens who could not get to Boston to see us in person. At the end of the day, the more models we can come up with the better.”
Dr. Hadland reported honoraria from the AAP outside the submitted work. Two coauthors reported receiving salary support from the AAP during the conduct of the study. A coauthor reported serving as the chair of the AAP Committee on Substance Use and Prevention outside the submitted work. This work was supported by a grant from the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation via the AAP. Dr. Sharon Levy’s husband, Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, is director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital.
An estimated 1 in 100 adolescents ages 12-17 years in the United States have an opioid use disorder (OUD). But fewer than 5% of adolescents with OUD get buprenorphine or naltrexone, though the treatments are recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), new data show.
Meanwhile, adolescent drug overdose deaths more than doubled between 2019 and 2021, with most involving opioids.
Scott E. Hadland, MD, MPH, with the Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine at Mass General for Children in Boston, and colleagues detailed the extent of the treatment gap and barriers to prescribing and caring for youth with OUD in primary care in a research letter published February 26 in JAMA Pediatrics.
Dr. Hadland’s team mailed 1,681 US pediatricians a survey and the response rate was 43.0%. Researchers included in the sample 474 primary care pediatricians who care for adolescents.
Who Should Treat OUD?
Most respondents (average age, 49.5; 74.0% female) agreed or strongly agreed that it is their responsibility to identify substance use disorders (93.9%) and refer patients to treatment (97.4%).
Fewer agreed or strongly agreed that it is their responsibility to treat substance use disorders (20.3%) or prescribe medications (12.4%). Fewer than half of the respondents said they felt prepared or very prepared to counsel adolescents on opioid use (48.3%) compared with those comfortable counseling on alcohol (87.1%), cannabis (81.7%), and e-cigarette use (80.1%; P < .001).
Pediatricians were less likely to provide counseling (63.0%) and more likely to refer patients to care off-site (71.8%) for opioid use than for alcohol (87.7% and 51.7%); cannabis (88.9% and 45.4%); or e-cigarette use (91.6% and 26.5%) (P < .001 for all comparisons).
Training Lacking in Residency Programs
“These results reveal an opportunity for greater workforce training in line with a 2019 survey showing fewer than 1 in 3 US pediatric residency programs included education on prescribing OUD medications,” the authors wrote. Training focused on treating OUD in primary care, including prescribing medications and addressing possible misperceptions, may be needed,” they noted.
The survey predated the elimination in 2023 of the federal buprenorphine waiver requirement, which made prescribing buprenorphine easier, so these results do not reflect any changes from that elimination, they wrote.
Sharon Levy, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Addiction Medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not part of this study, said more education on addiction medicine is needed for general pediatricians.
She said it’s time to push beyond the current framework of Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), because that doesn’t include “prescribing medications to manage withdrawal or suppress cravings or the use of lab testing, both of which could be accomplished in primary care.”
Dr. Levy said she considers substance use disorders the same way she considers other chronic conditions: Most patients can be treated in primary care. “Specialty care and higher levels of care need to be available for patients who are most complicated and/or having a flare of their condition.”
“In my opinion, most teens with opioid use disorder can and should be treated in primary care. I worry about referring teens with opioid use disorder to get medication somewhere else because there are few places that deliver this service to this age group. Additionally, teens and families are not always willing to pursue a referral, and many will get lost along the way.”
Promising Models
At Boston Children’s, she said, the Division of Addiction Medicine has created a consultation call line that primary care providers can call for help with any questions about teen substance use.
After running the consultation for about a year, she said, the program wanted to add ways to help patients directly and hired and trained social workers who can see pediatric patients with substance use problems for counseling via telemedicine. “The program also now supports group therapy for pediatric patients and parents, so that primary care providers can refer patients directly to group therapy,” Dr. Levy said.
The growth of telehealth since the pandemic may allow for new models of care.
“For example, now our Adolescent Substance Use and Addiction Program at Boston Children’s Hospital can provide services, including medication induction and follow-up, virtually,” Dr. Levy said. “This allows us to treat young people anywhere in the state. There have been instances in which a primary care provider referred us patients with OUD and then partnered with us, including performing physicals for teens who could not get to Boston to see us in person. At the end of the day, the more models we can come up with the better.”
Dr. Hadland reported honoraria from the AAP outside the submitted work. Two coauthors reported receiving salary support from the AAP during the conduct of the study. A coauthor reported serving as the chair of the AAP Committee on Substance Use and Prevention outside the submitted work. This work was supported by a grant from the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation via the AAP. Dr. Sharon Levy’s husband, Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, is director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital.
FROM JAMA PEDIATRICS