User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Patient Navigators for Serious Illnesses Can Now Bill Under New Medicare Codes
In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.
The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.
A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.
“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.
Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.
The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.
The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.
CMS expects the new navigators may:
- Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
- Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
- Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.
Peers as Navigators
The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.
“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.
The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.
But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.
In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.
“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.
Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.
The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.
The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.
Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.
Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.
Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.
“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
Potential Challenges
Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.
“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.
In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.
While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.
“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.
Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.
Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.
A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.
Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.
The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.
Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.
The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.
A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.
“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.
Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.
The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.
The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.
CMS expects the new navigators may:
- Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
- Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
- Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.
Peers as Navigators
The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.
“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.
The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.
But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.
In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.
“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.
Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.
The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.
The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.
Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.
Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.
Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.
“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
Potential Challenges
Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.
“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.
In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.
While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.
“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.
Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.
Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.
A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.
Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.
The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.
Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.
The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.
A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.
“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.
Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.
The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.
The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.
CMS expects the new navigators may:
- Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
- Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
- Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.
Peers as Navigators
The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.
“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.
The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.
But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.
In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.
“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.
Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.
The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.
The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.
Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.
Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.
Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.
“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
Potential Challenges
Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.
“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.
In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.
While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.
“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.
Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.
Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.
A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.
Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.
The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.
Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Anaphylaxis Preparedness Starts in Your Office: Insights on Caregiver Readiness and Epinephrine Device Selection
Click here to read more.
Click here to read more.
Click here to read more.
Helping to Protect Our Children From Invasive Pneumococcal Disease
Invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) remains a serious health threat for infants and can result in hospitalizations, serious complications, or even death.1-3 IPD rates peak at a critical stage in a child’s immune development, when maternal antibody protection wanes and the child has not yet received or is in the process of receiving their primary vaccination series.4 Pneumococcal vaccination is especially important during this vulnerable period to help protect against potentially severe consequences from IPD.2,4,5
Over the last 25 years, the widespread adoption of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) in children has led to a reduction in the spread of many different types of pneumococcal bacteria – referred to as serotypes.2 Although these vaccines have helped reduce the burden of disease, pneumococcal disease remains an issue, with specific serotypes presenting a greater threat to children’s health.6-10
Understanding the burden of IPD in children
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the incidence of IPD is highest in the first year of life,3,* and the death rate due to IPD is higher in infants than in any other pediatric age group.11,† Infants' immune systems are still developing in the first year of life; therefore, protection during this time is critical.3,4,11
The CDC recommends routine pediatric pneumococcal vaccination as a four-dose series at months two, four, and six with a booster administered between 12-15 months.12 Despite the risks associated with invasive pneumococcal disease, some children do not receive all four doses.1-3,13 Many factors can contribute to incomplete childhood immunization coverage, including ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status.14 In fact, up to one in five babies within the Vaccines for Children Program have received only three of the four recommended PCV doses by two years of age, according to a CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from 2021-2023.12,13 The immune response generated after the third dose of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine is important when evaluating protection against IPD, especially for the children who don't receive their fourth dose.12,15,16
Additionally, certain serotypes, like Serotype 3, are responsible for more IPD cases and are associated with higher morbidity and mortality rates in children.7-10,a Despite being included in PCVs for over a decade, Serotype 3 continues to be a leading cause of IPD in children under five, as shown in a pooled analysis of national-level CDC data from 2018-2022.7,17 This particular serotype has resisted antibody-mediated clearance and continues to be associated with adverse effects.18
What should pediatricians consider when it comes to protecting children from IPD?
When it comes to protecting against IPD, it's important to consider factors in addition to the number of serotypes covered by a vaccine, such as early and robust protection against key serotypes that cause pediatric IPD in the first year of life.2,7,10,19
VAXNEUVANCE® (Pneumococcal 15-valent Conjugate Vaccine) is a pediatric pneumococcal conjugate vaccine that can help deliver strong protection against key disease-causing serotypes during infancy, when the threat of IPD is the highest.2,3,7,10,19-21
Indications and Usage
VAXNEUVANCE is indicated for active immunization for the prevention of invasive disease caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae serotypes 1, 3, 4, 5, 6A, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19A, 19F, 22F, 23F, and 33F in individuals 6 weeks of age and older.
Select Safety Information
Do not administer VAXNEUVANCE to individuals with a severe allergic reaction (eg, anaphylaxis) to any component of VAXNEUVANCE or to diphtheria toxoid.
Some individuals with altered immunocompetence, including those receiving immunosuppressive therapy, may have a reduced immune response to VAXNEUVANCE.
Apnea following intramuscular vaccination has been observed in some infants born prematurely. Vaccination of premature infants should be based on the infant’s medical status and the potential benefits and possible risks.
(Select Safety Information for VAXNEUVANCE continues below.)
VAXNEUVANCE delivers robust immune responses at seven months, following the third dose, for three key disease-causing serotypes: 3, 22F and 33F.7,10,19,b,c Clinical data showed that immune responses for VAXNEUVANCE were superior to PCV13 (pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate vaccine) for those three critical serotypes2,7,10,19,d and were comparable for the 12 shared serotypes between the vaccines.19
Further, VAXNEUVANCE showcased superior immune responses against Serotype 3 after the third dose with an immunoglobulin G (IgG) geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) response rate of 93.1% compared to PCV13, which demonstrated a 74% response rate.19,b
Although completing the full recommended immunization series remains the best way to help maximize protection,12,22 many children still receive fewer than the recommended four doses of a PCV.12,13 It is important to consider a vaccine that targets problematic serotypes and provides robust immune responses after three doses – of the four dose series – to help protect this vulnerable population from IPD.3,4,7,10,11,19
VAXNEUVANCE can help prevent pediatric IPD in the first year of life and beyond and is an important option for pediatricians to consider for their appropriate patients.7,19
###
Select Safety Information (continued)
The most commonly reported solicited adverse reactions in children vaccinated at 2, 4, 6, and 12 through 15 months of age, provided as a range across the 4-dose series, were: irritability (57.3% to 63.4%), somnolence (24.2% to 47.5%), injection-site pain (25.9% to 40.3%), fever ≥38.0°C (13.3% to 20.4%), decreased appetite (14.1% to 19.0%), injection-site induration (13.2% to 15.4%), injection-site erythema (13.7% to 21.4%) and injection-site swelling (11.3% to 13.4%).
The most commonly reported solicited adverse reactions in children 2 through 17 years of age vaccinated with a single dose were: injection-site pain (54.8%), myalgia (23.7%), injection-site swelling (20.9%), injection-site erythema (19.2%), fatigue (15.8%), headache (11.9%) and injection-site induration (6.8%).
Vaccination with VAXNEUVANCE may not protect all vaccine recipients.
Before administering VAXNEUVANCE, please read the accompanying Prescribing Information. The Patient Information also is available.
* Based on pooled analysis of national-level CDC ABC surveillance data from 2018–2022, representing ~35 million people surveyed annually in 10 states across the US. IPD incidence rates were 10.3 in <1 year, 8.2 in 1 year, 4.0 in 2–4 years, 5.0 in 1–4 years, and 1.3 in 5–17 years (Regional variations may exist).3
† Based on national-level CDC ABC surveillance data from 2022, representing ~35 million people in 10 states across the US (Regional variations may exist).11
Key Study Details
GMC Ratios Postdose 3c
Primary endpoint: VAXNEUVANCE delivered comparable immune responses for 12 of the 13 shared serotypes found in PCV13. Shared Serotype 6A was just below the noninferiority criteria by a small margin, with the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio being 0.48 vs >0.5.19,23
Study Design
Study 8 was a pivotal, double-blind, active comparator-controlled study in which participants were randomized to receive VAXNEUVANCE (N=860) or PCV13 (N=860) in a 4-dose series. The first 3 doses were administered to infants at 2, 4, and 6 months of age and the fourth dose was administered to children at 12 through 15 months of age. Participants also received other licensed pediatric vaccines concomitantly. Immune responses were measured by IgG response rates, IgG GMCs, and OPA GMTs for all 15 serotypes contained in VAXNEUVANCE.19
aBased on a pooled analysis of national-level CDC data from 2018–2021, the top 6 IPD-causing serotypes in children under 5 years of age were 15C, 33F, 19F, 3, 23B, and 22F. Serotypes 15C and 23B are not included in any recommended pediatric PCV in the US.7,17,19,22,24
bPostdose 3 superiority was demonstrated based on measurements taken 30 days after the 6-month dose (at 7 months).19
cMeasurements were taken 30 days postdose specified.19
dSecondary endpoint: Postdose 3 IgG response rate percentage point difference vs PCV13 (95% CI): for Serotype 3, 19.1 (14.4, 24.0); for Serotype 22F, 8.1 (5.1, 11.5); for Serotype 33F, -5.1 (-9.5, -0.7).19,23
Randomized controlled trials assessing the clinical efficacy of VAXNEUVANCE compared to PCV13 have not been conducted.19
References:
1Dalton M. Pneumoccal disease. National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. Published July 2024. https://www.nfid.org/infectious-disease/pneumococcal/
2Gierke R, Wodi P, Kobayashi M. Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (Pink Book). 14th edition. Chapter 17: Pneumococcal disease. Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. Published May 1, 2024. Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-17-pneumococcal-disease.html
3Data available on request from the Merck National Service Center via email at [email protected]. Please specify information package US-PVC-02072.
4Mohanty S, Done N, Liu Q, et al. Incidence of pneumococcal disease in children ≤48 months old in the United States: 1998–2019. Vaccine. Published online March 1, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.03.013
5Clinical overview of pneumococcal disease. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. February 6, 2024. Accessed May 22, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/pneumococcal/hcp/clinical-overview/
6Wasserman MD, Perdrizet J, Grant L, et al. Clinical and economic burden of pneumococcal disease due to serotypes contained in current and investigational pneumococcal conjugate vaccines in children under five years of age. Infect Dis Ther. 2021;10(4):2701-2720. doi:10.1007/s40121-021-00544-1
7Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Visualization – Based on 1998-2022 serotype data for invasive pneumococcal disease cases by age group from Active Bacterial Core surveillance (ABCs). Updated July 22, 2024. Accessed August 30, 2024. https://data.cdc.gov/Public-Health-Surveillance/1998-2022-Serotype-Data-for-Invasive-Pneumococcal-/qvzb-qs6p/about_data
8Varghese J, Chochua S, Tran T, et al. Multistate population and whole genome sequence-based strain surveillance of invasive pneumococci recovered in the USA during 2017. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26(4):512.e1-512.e10. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2019.09.008
9Azarian T, Mitchell PK, Georgieva M, et al. Global emergence and population dynamics of divergent serotype 3 CC180 pneumococci. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(11):e1007438. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1007438
10Hu T, Weiss T, Owusu-Edusei K, Petigara T. Health and economic burden associated with 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine serotypes in children in the United States. J Med Econ. 2020;23(12):1653-1660. doi:10.1080/13696998.2020.184021613
11Active Bacterial Core surveillance (ABCs) report, Emerging Infections Program network, Streptococcus pneumoniae, 2022. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated July 5, 2024. Accessed October 15, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/abcs/downloads/SPN_Surveillance_Report_2022.pdf
12Recommended child and adolescent immunization schedule for ages 18 years or younger, United States, 2025. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Addendum updated November 21, 2024. Accessed November 25, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/downloads/child/0-18yrs-child-combined-schedule.pdf
13Hill HA, et al. Decline in Vaccination Coverage by Age 24 Months and Vaccination Inequities Among Children Born in 2020 and 2021 — National Immunization Survey-Child, United States, 2021–2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, pages 844–853.
14Feemster K, Weaver J, Buchwald U, Banniettis N, Cox KS, McIntosh ED, Spoulou V. Pneumococcal Vaccine Breakthrough and Failure in Infants and Children: A Narrative Review. Vaccines (Basel). 2023 Nov 24;11(12):1750. doi:10.3390/vaccines11121750. PMID: 38140155; PMCID: PMC10747311.
15Recommendations to assure the quality, safety and efficacy of pneumoccoccal conjugate vaccines. Annex 3. TRS no 977. World Health Organization. October 19, 2013. Accessed October 31, 2024. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/pneumococcal-conjugate-vaccines-annex3-trs-977
16Guidelines on clinical evaluation of vaccines: regulatory expectations. Annex 9. TRA No 924.World Health Organization. Last reviewed October 21, 2020. Accessed October 31, 2024. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/WHO-TRS-1004-web-annex-9
17Prevnar 13. Prescribing Information. Pfizer; 2019.
18Luck JN, Tettelin H, Orihuela CJ. Sugar-Coated Killer: Serotype 3 Pneumococcal Disease. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020;10:613287. Published 2020 Dec 23. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2020.613287
19VAXNEUVANCE. Prescribing Information. Merck & Co., Inc., 2024.
20Moraes-Pinto MI, Suano-Souza F, Aranda CS. Immune system: development and acquisition of immunological competence. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2021;97(S1):S59-S66. doi:10.1016/j.jped.2020.10.006
21Wodi AP, Morelli V. Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (Pink Book). 14th edition. Chapter 1: Principles of vaccination. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Last reviewed March 2024. Accessed May 9, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-1-principles-of-vaccination.html
22Pneumococcal vaccination. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Last reviewed September 12, 2024. Accessed September 30, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/pneumococcal/vaccines/index.html
23Lupinacci R, Rupp R, Wittawatmongkol O, et al. A phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-comparator-controlled study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a 4-dose regimen of V114, a 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, in healthy infants (PNEU-PED). Vaccine. 2023;41(5):1142-1152. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.12.054
24Prevnar 20. Prescribing Information. Pfizer; 2023.
Copyright © 2025 Frontline Medical Communications Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, by any means, without prior written permission of the Publisher. Frontline Medical Communications Inc. will not assume responsibility for damages, loss, or claims of any kind arising from or related to the information contained in this publication, including any claims related to the products, drugs, or services mentioned herein. The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the Publisher. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners.
Neither the editors of Pediatric News nor the Editorial Advisory Board nor the reporting staff contributed to this content.
US-PVC-01998 03/25
Invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) remains a serious health threat for infants and can result in hospitalizations, serious complications, or even death.1-3 IPD rates peak at a critical stage in a child’s immune development, when maternal antibody protection wanes and the child has not yet received or is in the process of receiving their primary vaccination series.4 Pneumococcal vaccination is especially important during this vulnerable period to help protect against potentially severe consequences from IPD.2,4,5
Over the last 25 years, the widespread adoption of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) in children has led to a reduction in the spread of many different types of pneumococcal bacteria – referred to as serotypes.2 Although these vaccines have helped reduce the burden of disease, pneumococcal disease remains an issue, with specific serotypes presenting a greater threat to children’s health.6-10
Understanding the burden of IPD in children
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the incidence of IPD is highest in the first year of life,3,* and the death rate due to IPD is higher in infants than in any other pediatric age group.11,† Infants' immune systems are still developing in the first year of life; therefore, protection during this time is critical.3,4,11
The CDC recommends routine pediatric pneumococcal vaccination as a four-dose series at months two, four, and six with a booster administered between 12-15 months.12 Despite the risks associated with invasive pneumococcal disease, some children do not receive all four doses.1-3,13 Many factors can contribute to incomplete childhood immunization coverage, including ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status.14 In fact, up to one in five babies within the Vaccines for Children Program have received only three of the four recommended PCV doses by two years of age, according to a CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from 2021-2023.12,13 The immune response generated after the third dose of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine is important when evaluating protection against IPD, especially for the children who don't receive their fourth dose.12,15,16
Additionally, certain serotypes, like Serotype 3, are responsible for more IPD cases and are associated with higher morbidity and mortality rates in children.7-10,a Despite being included in PCVs for over a decade, Serotype 3 continues to be a leading cause of IPD in children under five, as shown in a pooled analysis of national-level CDC data from 2018-2022.7,17 This particular serotype has resisted antibody-mediated clearance and continues to be associated with adverse effects.18
What should pediatricians consider when it comes to protecting children from IPD?
When it comes to protecting against IPD, it's important to consider factors in addition to the number of serotypes covered by a vaccine, such as early and robust protection against key serotypes that cause pediatric IPD in the first year of life.2,7,10,19
VAXNEUVANCE® (Pneumococcal 15-valent Conjugate Vaccine) is a pediatric pneumococcal conjugate vaccine that can help deliver strong protection against key disease-causing serotypes during infancy, when the threat of IPD is the highest.2,3,7,10,19-21
Indications and Usage
VAXNEUVANCE is indicated for active immunization for the prevention of invasive disease caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae serotypes 1, 3, 4, 5, 6A, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19A, 19F, 22F, 23F, and 33F in individuals 6 weeks of age and older.
Select Safety Information
Do not administer VAXNEUVANCE to individuals with a severe allergic reaction (eg, anaphylaxis) to any component of VAXNEUVANCE or to diphtheria toxoid.
Some individuals with altered immunocompetence, including those receiving immunosuppressive therapy, may have a reduced immune response to VAXNEUVANCE.
Apnea following intramuscular vaccination has been observed in some infants born prematurely. Vaccination of premature infants should be based on the infant’s medical status and the potential benefits and possible risks.
(Select Safety Information for VAXNEUVANCE continues below.)
VAXNEUVANCE delivers robust immune responses at seven months, following the third dose, for three key disease-causing serotypes: 3, 22F and 33F.7,10,19,b,c Clinical data showed that immune responses for VAXNEUVANCE were superior to PCV13 (pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate vaccine) for those three critical serotypes2,7,10,19,d and were comparable for the 12 shared serotypes between the vaccines.19
Further, VAXNEUVANCE showcased superior immune responses against Serotype 3 after the third dose with an immunoglobulin G (IgG) geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) response rate of 93.1% compared to PCV13, which demonstrated a 74% response rate.19,b
Although completing the full recommended immunization series remains the best way to help maximize protection,12,22 many children still receive fewer than the recommended four doses of a PCV.12,13 It is important to consider a vaccine that targets problematic serotypes and provides robust immune responses after three doses – of the four dose series – to help protect this vulnerable population from IPD.3,4,7,10,11,19
VAXNEUVANCE can help prevent pediatric IPD in the first year of life and beyond and is an important option for pediatricians to consider for their appropriate patients.7,19
###
Select Safety Information (continued)
The most commonly reported solicited adverse reactions in children vaccinated at 2, 4, 6, and 12 through 15 months of age, provided as a range across the 4-dose series, were: irritability (57.3% to 63.4%), somnolence (24.2% to 47.5%), injection-site pain (25.9% to 40.3%), fever ≥38.0°C (13.3% to 20.4%), decreased appetite (14.1% to 19.0%), injection-site induration (13.2% to 15.4%), injection-site erythema (13.7% to 21.4%) and injection-site swelling (11.3% to 13.4%).
The most commonly reported solicited adverse reactions in children 2 through 17 years of age vaccinated with a single dose were: injection-site pain (54.8%), myalgia (23.7%), injection-site swelling (20.9%), injection-site erythema (19.2%), fatigue (15.8%), headache (11.9%) and injection-site induration (6.8%).
Vaccination with VAXNEUVANCE may not protect all vaccine recipients.
Before administering VAXNEUVANCE, please read the accompanying Prescribing Information. The Patient Information also is available.
* Based on pooled analysis of national-level CDC ABC surveillance data from 2018–2022, representing ~35 million people surveyed annually in 10 states across the US. IPD incidence rates were 10.3 in <1 year, 8.2 in 1 year, 4.0 in 2–4 years, 5.0 in 1–4 years, and 1.3 in 5–17 years (Regional variations may exist).3
† Based on national-level CDC ABC surveillance data from 2022, representing ~35 million people in 10 states across the US (Regional variations may exist).11
Key Study Details
GMC Ratios Postdose 3c
Primary endpoint: VAXNEUVANCE delivered comparable immune responses for 12 of the 13 shared serotypes found in PCV13. Shared Serotype 6A was just below the noninferiority criteria by a small margin, with the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio being 0.48 vs >0.5.19,23
Study Design
Study 8 was a pivotal, double-blind, active comparator-controlled study in which participants were randomized to receive VAXNEUVANCE (N=860) or PCV13 (N=860) in a 4-dose series. The first 3 doses were administered to infants at 2, 4, and 6 months of age and the fourth dose was administered to children at 12 through 15 months of age. Participants also received other licensed pediatric vaccines concomitantly. Immune responses were measured by IgG response rates, IgG GMCs, and OPA GMTs for all 15 serotypes contained in VAXNEUVANCE.19
aBased on a pooled analysis of national-level CDC data from 2018–2021, the top 6 IPD-causing serotypes in children under 5 years of age were 15C, 33F, 19F, 3, 23B, and 22F. Serotypes 15C and 23B are not included in any recommended pediatric PCV in the US.7,17,19,22,24
bPostdose 3 superiority was demonstrated based on measurements taken 30 days after the 6-month dose (at 7 months).19
cMeasurements were taken 30 days postdose specified.19
dSecondary endpoint: Postdose 3 IgG response rate percentage point difference vs PCV13 (95% CI): for Serotype 3, 19.1 (14.4, 24.0); for Serotype 22F, 8.1 (5.1, 11.5); for Serotype 33F, -5.1 (-9.5, -0.7).19,23
Randomized controlled trials assessing the clinical efficacy of VAXNEUVANCE compared to PCV13 have not been conducted.19
References:
1Dalton M. Pneumoccal disease. National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. Published July 2024. https://www.nfid.org/infectious-disease/pneumococcal/
2Gierke R, Wodi P, Kobayashi M. Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (Pink Book). 14th edition. Chapter 17: Pneumococcal disease. Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. Published May 1, 2024. Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-17-pneumococcal-disease.html
3Data available on request from the Merck National Service Center via email at [email protected]. Please specify information package US-PVC-02072.
4Mohanty S, Done N, Liu Q, et al. Incidence of pneumococcal disease in children ≤48 months old in the United States: 1998–2019. Vaccine. Published online March 1, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.03.013
5Clinical overview of pneumococcal disease. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. February 6, 2024. Accessed May 22, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/pneumococcal/hcp/clinical-overview/
6Wasserman MD, Perdrizet J, Grant L, et al. Clinical and economic burden of pneumococcal disease due to serotypes contained in current and investigational pneumococcal conjugate vaccines in children under five years of age. Infect Dis Ther. 2021;10(4):2701-2720. doi:10.1007/s40121-021-00544-1
7Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Visualization – Based on 1998-2022 serotype data for invasive pneumococcal disease cases by age group from Active Bacterial Core surveillance (ABCs). Updated July 22, 2024. Accessed August 30, 2024. https://data.cdc.gov/Public-Health-Surveillance/1998-2022-Serotype-Data-for-Invasive-Pneumococcal-/qvzb-qs6p/about_data
8Varghese J, Chochua S, Tran T, et al. Multistate population and whole genome sequence-based strain surveillance of invasive pneumococci recovered in the USA during 2017. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26(4):512.e1-512.e10. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2019.09.008
9Azarian T, Mitchell PK, Georgieva M, et al. Global emergence and population dynamics of divergent serotype 3 CC180 pneumococci. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(11):e1007438. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1007438
10Hu T, Weiss T, Owusu-Edusei K, Petigara T. Health and economic burden associated with 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine serotypes in children in the United States. J Med Econ. 2020;23(12):1653-1660. doi:10.1080/13696998.2020.184021613
11Active Bacterial Core surveillance (ABCs) report, Emerging Infections Program network, Streptococcus pneumoniae, 2022. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated July 5, 2024. Accessed October 15, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/abcs/downloads/SPN_Surveillance_Report_2022.pdf
12Recommended child and adolescent immunization schedule for ages 18 years or younger, United States, 2025. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Addendum updated November 21, 2024. Accessed November 25, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/downloads/child/0-18yrs-child-combined-schedule.pdf
13Hill HA, et al. Decline in Vaccination Coverage by Age 24 Months and Vaccination Inequities Among Children Born in 2020 and 2021 — National Immunization Survey-Child, United States, 2021–2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, pages 844–853.
14Feemster K, Weaver J, Buchwald U, Banniettis N, Cox KS, McIntosh ED, Spoulou V. Pneumococcal Vaccine Breakthrough and Failure in Infants and Children: A Narrative Review. Vaccines (Basel). 2023 Nov 24;11(12):1750. doi:10.3390/vaccines11121750. PMID: 38140155; PMCID: PMC10747311.
15Recommendations to assure the quality, safety and efficacy of pneumoccoccal conjugate vaccines. Annex 3. TRS no 977. World Health Organization. October 19, 2013. Accessed October 31, 2024. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/pneumococcal-conjugate-vaccines-annex3-trs-977
16Guidelines on clinical evaluation of vaccines: regulatory expectations. Annex 9. TRA No 924.World Health Organization. Last reviewed October 21, 2020. Accessed October 31, 2024. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/WHO-TRS-1004-web-annex-9
17Prevnar 13. Prescribing Information. Pfizer; 2019.
18Luck JN, Tettelin H, Orihuela CJ. Sugar-Coated Killer: Serotype 3 Pneumococcal Disease. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020;10:613287. Published 2020 Dec 23. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2020.613287
19VAXNEUVANCE. Prescribing Information. Merck & Co., Inc., 2024.
20Moraes-Pinto MI, Suano-Souza F, Aranda CS. Immune system: development and acquisition of immunological competence. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2021;97(S1):S59-S66. doi:10.1016/j.jped.2020.10.006
21Wodi AP, Morelli V. Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (Pink Book). 14th edition. Chapter 1: Principles of vaccination. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Last reviewed March 2024. Accessed May 9, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-1-principles-of-vaccination.html
22Pneumococcal vaccination. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Last reviewed September 12, 2024. Accessed September 30, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/pneumococcal/vaccines/index.html
23Lupinacci R, Rupp R, Wittawatmongkol O, et al. A phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-comparator-controlled study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a 4-dose regimen of V114, a 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, in healthy infants (PNEU-PED). Vaccine. 2023;41(5):1142-1152. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.12.054
24Prevnar 20. Prescribing Information. Pfizer; 2023.
Copyright © 2025 Frontline Medical Communications Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, by any means, without prior written permission of the Publisher. Frontline Medical Communications Inc. will not assume responsibility for damages, loss, or claims of any kind arising from or related to the information contained in this publication, including any claims related to the products, drugs, or services mentioned herein. The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the Publisher. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners.
Neither the editors of Pediatric News nor the Editorial Advisory Board nor the reporting staff contributed to this content.
US-PVC-01998 03/25
Invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) remains a serious health threat for infants and can result in hospitalizations, serious complications, or even death.1-3 IPD rates peak at a critical stage in a child’s immune development, when maternal antibody protection wanes and the child has not yet received or is in the process of receiving their primary vaccination series.4 Pneumococcal vaccination is especially important during this vulnerable period to help protect against potentially severe consequences from IPD.2,4,5
Over the last 25 years, the widespread adoption of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) in children has led to a reduction in the spread of many different types of pneumococcal bacteria – referred to as serotypes.2 Although these vaccines have helped reduce the burden of disease, pneumococcal disease remains an issue, with specific serotypes presenting a greater threat to children’s health.6-10
Understanding the burden of IPD in children
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the incidence of IPD is highest in the first year of life,3,* and the death rate due to IPD is higher in infants than in any other pediatric age group.11,† Infants' immune systems are still developing in the first year of life; therefore, protection during this time is critical.3,4,11
The CDC recommends routine pediatric pneumococcal vaccination as a four-dose series at months two, four, and six with a booster administered between 12-15 months.12 Despite the risks associated with invasive pneumococcal disease, some children do not receive all four doses.1-3,13 Many factors can contribute to incomplete childhood immunization coverage, including ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status.14 In fact, up to one in five babies within the Vaccines for Children Program have received only three of the four recommended PCV doses by two years of age, according to a CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from 2021-2023.12,13 The immune response generated after the third dose of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine is important when evaluating protection against IPD, especially for the children who don't receive their fourth dose.12,15,16
Additionally, certain serotypes, like Serotype 3, are responsible for more IPD cases and are associated with higher morbidity and mortality rates in children.7-10,a Despite being included in PCVs for over a decade, Serotype 3 continues to be a leading cause of IPD in children under five, as shown in a pooled analysis of national-level CDC data from 2018-2022.7,17 This particular serotype has resisted antibody-mediated clearance and continues to be associated with adverse effects.18
What should pediatricians consider when it comes to protecting children from IPD?
When it comes to protecting against IPD, it's important to consider factors in addition to the number of serotypes covered by a vaccine, such as early and robust protection against key serotypes that cause pediatric IPD in the first year of life.2,7,10,19
VAXNEUVANCE® (Pneumococcal 15-valent Conjugate Vaccine) is a pediatric pneumococcal conjugate vaccine that can help deliver strong protection against key disease-causing serotypes during infancy, when the threat of IPD is the highest.2,3,7,10,19-21
Indications and Usage
VAXNEUVANCE is indicated for active immunization for the prevention of invasive disease caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae serotypes 1, 3, 4, 5, 6A, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19A, 19F, 22F, 23F, and 33F in individuals 6 weeks of age and older.
Select Safety Information
Do not administer VAXNEUVANCE to individuals with a severe allergic reaction (eg, anaphylaxis) to any component of VAXNEUVANCE or to diphtheria toxoid.
Some individuals with altered immunocompetence, including those receiving immunosuppressive therapy, may have a reduced immune response to VAXNEUVANCE.
Apnea following intramuscular vaccination has been observed in some infants born prematurely. Vaccination of premature infants should be based on the infant’s medical status and the potential benefits and possible risks.
(Select Safety Information for VAXNEUVANCE continues below.)
VAXNEUVANCE delivers robust immune responses at seven months, following the third dose, for three key disease-causing serotypes: 3, 22F and 33F.7,10,19,b,c Clinical data showed that immune responses for VAXNEUVANCE were superior to PCV13 (pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate vaccine) for those three critical serotypes2,7,10,19,d and were comparable for the 12 shared serotypes between the vaccines.19
Further, VAXNEUVANCE showcased superior immune responses against Serotype 3 after the third dose with an immunoglobulin G (IgG) geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) response rate of 93.1% compared to PCV13, which demonstrated a 74% response rate.19,b
Although completing the full recommended immunization series remains the best way to help maximize protection,12,22 many children still receive fewer than the recommended four doses of a PCV.12,13 It is important to consider a vaccine that targets problematic serotypes and provides robust immune responses after three doses – of the four dose series – to help protect this vulnerable population from IPD.3,4,7,10,11,19
VAXNEUVANCE can help prevent pediatric IPD in the first year of life and beyond and is an important option for pediatricians to consider for their appropriate patients.7,19
###
Select Safety Information (continued)
The most commonly reported solicited adverse reactions in children vaccinated at 2, 4, 6, and 12 through 15 months of age, provided as a range across the 4-dose series, were: irritability (57.3% to 63.4%), somnolence (24.2% to 47.5%), injection-site pain (25.9% to 40.3%), fever ≥38.0°C (13.3% to 20.4%), decreased appetite (14.1% to 19.0%), injection-site induration (13.2% to 15.4%), injection-site erythema (13.7% to 21.4%) and injection-site swelling (11.3% to 13.4%).
The most commonly reported solicited adverse reactions in children 2 through 17 years of age vaccinated with a single dose were: injection-site pain (54.8%), myalgia (23.7%), injection-site swelling (20.9%), injection-site erythema (19.2%), fatigue (15.8%), headache (11.9%) and injection-site induration (6.8%).
Vaccination with VAXNEUVANCE may not protect all vaccine recipients.
Before administering VAXNEUVANCE, please read the accompanying Prescribing Information. The Patient Information also is available.
* Based on pooled analysis of national-level CDC ABC surveillance data from 2018–2022, representing ~35 million people surveyed annually in 10 states across the US. IPD incidence rates were 10.3 in <1 year, 8.2 in 1 year, 4.0 in 2–4 years, 5.0 in 1–4 years, and 1.3 in 5–17 years (Regional variations may exist).3
† Based on national-level CDC ABC surveillance data from 2022, representing ~35 million people in 10 states across the US (Regional variations may exist).11
Key Study Details
GMC Ratios Postdose 3c
Primary endpoint: VAXNEUVANCE delivered comparable immune responses for 12 of the 13 shared serotypes found in PCV13. Shared Serotype 6A was just below the noninferiority criteria by a small margin, with the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio being 0.48 vs >0.5.19,23
Study Design
Study 8 was a pivotal, double-blind, active comparator-controlled study in which participants were randomized to receive VAXNEUVANCE (N=860) or PCV13 (N=860) in a 4-dose series. The first 3 doses were administered to infants at 2, 4, and 6 months of age and the fourth dose was administered to children at 12 through 15 months of age. Participants also received other licensed pediatric vaccines concomitantly. Immune responses were measured by IgG response rates, IgG GMCs, and OPA GMTs for all 15 serotypes contained in VAXNEUVANCE.19
aBased on a pooled analysis of national-level CDC data from 2018–2021, the top 6 IPD-causing serotypes in children under 5 years of age were 15C, 33F, 19F, 3, 23B, and 22F. Serotypes 15C and 23B are not included in any recommended pediatric PCV in the US.7,17,19,22,24
bPostdose 3 superiority was demonstrated based on measurements taken 30 days after the 6-month dose (at 7 months).19
cMeasurements were taken 30 days postdose specified.19
dSecondary endpoint: Postdose 3 IgG response rate percentage point difference vs PCV13 (95% CI): for Serotype 3, 19.1 (14.4, 24.0); for Serotype 22F, 8.1 (5.1, 11.5); for Serotype 33F, -5.1 (-9.5, -0.7).19,23
Randomized controlled trials assessing the clinical efficacy of VAXNEUVANCE compared to PCV13 have not been conducted.19
References:
1Dalton M. Pneumoccal disease. National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. Published July 2024. https://www.nfid.org/infectious-disease/pneumococcal/
2Gierke R, Wodi P, Kobayashi M. Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (Pink Book). 14th edition. Chapter 17: Pneumococcal disease. Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. Published May 1, 2024. Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-17-pneumococcal-disease.html
3Data available on request from the Merck National Service Center via email at [email protected]. Please specify information package US-PVC-02072.
4Mohanty S, Done N, Liu Q, et al. Incidence of pneumococcal disease in children ≤48 months old in the United States: 1998–2019. Vaccine. Published online March 1, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.03.013
5Clinical overview of pneumococcal disease. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. February 6, 2024. Accessed May 22, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/pneumococcal/hcp/clinical-overview/
6Wasserman MD, Perdrizet J, Grant L, et al. Clinical and economic burden of pneumococcal disease due to serotypes contained in current and investigational pneumococcal conjugate vaccines in children under five years of age. Infect Dis Ther. 2021;10(4):2701-2720. doi:10.1007/s40121-021-00544-1
7Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Visualization – Based on 1998-2022 serotype data for invasive pneumococcal disease cases by age group from Active Bacterial Core surveillance (ABCs). Updated July 22, 2024. Accessed August 30, 2024. https://data.cdc.gov/Public-Health-Surveillance/1998-2022-Serotype-Data-for-Invasive-Pneumococcal-/qvzb-qs6p/about_data
8Varghese J, Chochua S, Tran T, et al. Multistate population and whole genome sequence-based strain surveillance of invasive pneumococci recovered in the USA during 2017. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26(4):512.e1-512.e10. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2019.09.008
9Azarian T, Mitchell PK, Georgieva M, et al. Global emergence and population dynamics of divergent serotype 3 CC180 pneumococci. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(11):e1007438. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1007438
10Hu T, Weiss T, Owusu-Edusei K, Petigara T. Health and economic burden associated with 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine serotypes in children in the United States. J Med Econ. 2020;23(12):1653-1660. doi:10.1080/13696998.2020.184021613
11Active Bacterial Core surveillance (ABCs) report, Emerging Infections Program network, Streptococcus pneumoniae, 2022. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated July 5, 2024. Accessed October 15, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/abcs/downloads/SPN_Surveillance_Report_2022.pdf
12Recommended child and adolescent immunization schedule for ages 18 years or younger, United States, 2025. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Addendum updated November 21, 2024. Accessed November 25, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/downloads/child/0-18yrs-child-combined-schedule.pdf
13Hill HA, et al. Decline in Vaccination Coverage by Age 24 Months and Vaccination Inequities Among Children Born in 2020 and 2021 — National Immunization Survey-Child, United States, 2021–2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, pages 844–853.
14Feemster K, Weaver J, Buchwald U, Banniettis N, Cox KS, McIntosh ED, Spoulou V. Pneumococcal Vaccine Breakthrough and Failure in Infants and Children: A Narrative Review. Vaccines (Basel). 2023 Nov 24;11(12):1750. doi:10.3390/vaccines11121750. PMID: 38140155; PMCID: PMC10747311.
15Recommendations to assure the quality, safety and efficacy of pneumoccoccal conjugate vaccines. Annex 3. TRS no 977. World Health Organization. October 19, 2013. Accessed October 31, 2024. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/pneumococcal-conjugate-vaccines-annex3-trs-977
16Guidelines on clinical evaluation of vaccines: regulatory expectations. Annex 9. TRA No 924.World Health Organization. Last reviewed October 21, 2020. Accessed October 31, 2024. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/WHO-TRS-1004-web-annex-9
17Prevnar 13. Prescribing Information. Pfizer; 2019.
18Luck JN, Tettelin H, Orihuela CJ. Sugar-Coated Killer: Serotype 3 Pneumococcal Disease. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020;10:613287. Published 2020 Dec 23. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2020.613287
19VAXNEUVANCE. Prescribing Information. Merck & Co., Inc., 2024.
20Moraes-Pinto MI, Suano-Souza F, Aranda CS. Immune system: development and acquisition of immunological competence. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2021;97(S1):S59-S66. doi:10.1016/j.jped.2020.10.006
21Wodi AP, Morelli V. Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (Pink Book). 14th edition. Chapter 1: Principles of vaccination. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Last reviewed March 2024. Accessed May 9, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-1-principles-of-vaccination.html
22Pneumococcal vaccination. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Last reviewed September 12, 2024. Accessed September 30, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/pneumococcal/vaccines/index.html
23Lupinacci R, Rupp R, Wittawatmongkol O, et al. A phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-comparator-controlled study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a 4-dose regimen of V114, a 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, in healthy infants (PNEU-PED). Vaccine. 2023;41(5):1142-1152. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.12.054
24Prevnar 20. Prescribing Information. Pfizer; 2023.
Copyright © 2025 Frontline Medical Communications Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, by any means, without prior written permission of the Publisher. Frontline Medical Communications Inc. will not assume responsibility for damages, loss, or claims of any kind arising from or related to the information contained in this publication, including any claims related to the products, drugs, or services mentioned herein. The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the Publisher. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners.
Neither the editors of Pediatric News nor the Editorial Advisory Board nor the reporting staff contributed to this content.
US-PVC-01998 03/25
Measurement-Based Treatment to Target Approaches
Clinical Scenario
Lilly is a 15-year-old girl in her sophomore year of high school. Over the course of a month after a romantic and then a friend-group breakup, her parents have been concerned about her increasing tearfulness every day and retreat from activities to avoid social interactions with others that she once enjoyed so much. She has been missing more and more school, saying that she can’t bear to go, and staying in bed during the days, even on weekends. You start her on an SSRI and recommend psychotherapy in the form of CBT offered through your office. She returns to the appointment in 2 weeks with you and then again in another 2 weeks. Her parents and she tell you, “I thought she would be better by now.” You feel stuck with how to proceed in the visit. You have correctly identified the problem as depression, started the recommended evidence-based treatments, but the parents and Lilly are looking to you for something more or different. There are not many or other local resources. When and how do you all determine what “better” looks and feels like? Where do you go from here?
Metrics Can Guide Next Steps
This clinical scenario is not uncommon. As a psychiatrist consultant in primary care, I often encounter the following comment and question: “Someone isn’t feeling better. I have them taking an SSRI and doing psychotherapy. What is the next thing to do?” In discussions with supervisees and in training residents, I often say that you will know that your consultations have made a real impact on providers’ practices when these questions shift from “what’s the next medication or treatment” to a more robust baseline and follow-up inventory of symptoms via common and available metrics (PHQ9A, PSC-17 or 30, SCARED) shared with you at the start, the middle, and at other times of treatment. Such metrics can more meaningfully guide your collaborative clinical discussions and decisions.
Tracking baseline metrics and follow-up with treatment interventions is a transformative approach to clinical care. But, in primary care, it’s common that the question around mental health care may not receive the same robust screening and tracking of symptoms which have the power to more thoughtfully guide decision-making, even though this is common in other forms of patient care which have more routine use of more objective data.
Measurement-based treatment to target approaches are well-studied, but not often or always implemented. They involve providing a baseline metric (PHQ9A, Pediatric Symptom Checklist 17 or 30, GAD7, or SCARED), and tracking that metric for response over time using specific scores for decision points.
An Alternative Clinical Scenario
Consider the following alternative scenario for the above patient using a measurement-based treatment to target approach:
Lilly is a 15-year-old girl in her sophomore year of high school with symptoms concerning for depression. A PHQ9A is administered in your appointment, and she scores 20 out of 30, exceeding the threshold score for 11 for depression. You start her on an SSRI and recommend psychotherapy in the form of CBT offered through your office. She returns to the appointment with you in 2 weeks and then again in another 2 weeks. You obtain a PHQ9A at each appointment, and track the change with her and her parents over time.
You share with her and the family that it is common that there will be fluctuations in measurements, and you know that a score change on the PHQ9A greater than 7 is considered a clinically significant, reliable change. So, a PHQ9 score reduction from 20 to 13 would be meaningful progress. While seeking a score within the normal and non-clinical range, the progress can be tracked in a way that allows a more robust monitoring of treatment response. If the scores do not improve, you can see that and act accordingly. This way of using metrics shifts the conversation from “how are you feeling now and today” to tracking symptoms more broadly and tracking those individual symptoms over time, some of which may improve and some which may be trickier to target.
Such a way of tracking common mental health symptoms with a focus on having data at baseline and throughout treatment allows a provider to change or adapt interventions, and to not chase something that can feel ephemeral, such as “feeling happy or looking better.”
For additional information on the measurement-based treatment to target approach, there are resources that share in more depth the research informing this approach, and other and broader real ways to integrate these practices into your own visits:
- Is Treatment Working? Detecting Real Change in the Treatment of Child and Adolescent Depression
- AACAP Clinical Update: Collaborative Mental Health Care for Children and Adolescents in Primary Care
Pawlowski is a child and adolescent consulting psychiatrist. She is a division chief at the University of Vermont Medical Center where she focuses on primary care mental health integration within primary care pediatrics, internal medicine, and family medicine.
Clinical Scenario
Lilly is a 15-year-old girl in her sophomore year of high school. Over the course of a month after a romantic and then a friend-group breakup, her parents have been concerned about her increasing tearfulness every day and retreat from activities to avoid social interactions with others that she once enjoyed so much. She has been missing more and more school, saying that she can’t bear to go, and staying in bed during the days, even on weekends. You start her on an SSRI and recommend psychotherapy in the form of CBT offered through your office. She returns to the appointment in 2 weeks with you and then again in another 2 weeks. Her parents and she tell you, “I thought she would be better by now.” You feel stuck with how to proceed in the visit. You have correctly identified the problem as depression, started the recommended evidence-based treatments, but the parents and Lilly are looking to you for something more or different. There are not many or other local resources. When and how do you all determine what “better” looks and feels like? Where do you go from here?
Metrics Can Guide Next Steps
This clinical scenario is not uncommon. As a psychiatrist consultant in primary care, I often encounter the following comment and question: “Someone isn’t feeling better. I have them taking an SSRI and doing psychotherapy. What is the next thing to do?” In discussions with supervisees and in training residents, I often say that you will know that your consultations have made a real impact on providers’ practices when these questions shift from “what’s the next medication or treatment” to a more robust baseline and follow-up inventory of symptoms via common and available metrics (PHQ9A, PSC-17 or 30, SCARED) shared with you at the start, the middle, and at other times of treatment. Such metrics can more meaningfully guide your collaborative clinical discussions and decisions.
Tracking baseline metrics and follow-up with treatment interventions is a transformative approach to clinical care. But, in primary care, it’s common that the question around mental health care may not receive the same robust screening and tracking of symptoms which have the power to more thoughtfully guide decision-making, even though this is common in other forms of patient care which have more routine use of more objective data.
Measurement-based treatment to target approaches are well-studied, but not often or always implemented. They involve providing a baseline metric (PHQ9A, Pediatric Symptom Checklist 17 or 30, GAD7, or SCARED), and tracking that metric for response over time using specific scores for decision points.
An Alternative Clinical Scenario
Consider the following alternative scenario for the above patient using a measurement-based treatment to target approach:
Lilly is a 15-year-old girl in her sophomore year of high school with symptoms concerning for depression. A PHQ9A is administered in your appointment, and she scores 20 out of 30, exceeding the threshold score for 11 for depression. You start her on an SSRI and recommend psychotherapy in the form of CBT offered through your office. She returns to the appointment with you in 2 weeks and then again in another 2 weeks. You obtain a PHQ9A at each appointment, and track the change with her and her parents over time.
You share with her and the family that it is common that there will be fluctuations in measurements, and you know that a score change on the PHQ9A greater than 7 is considered a clinically significant, reliable change. So, a PHQ9 score reduction from 20 to 13 would be meaningful progress. While seeking a score within the normal and non-clinical range, the progress can be tracked in a way that allows a more robust monitoring of treatment response. If the scores do not improve, you can see that and act accordingly. This way of using metrics shifts the conversation from “how are you feeling now and today” to tracking symptoms more broadly and tracking those individual symptoms over time, some of which may improve and some which may be trickier to target.
Such a way of tracking common mental health symptoms with a focus on having data at baseline and throughout treatment allows a provider to change or adapt interventions, and to not chase something that can feel ephemeral, such as “feeling happy or looking better.”
For additional information on the measurement-based treatment to target approach, there are resources that share in more depth the research informing this approach, and other and broader real ways to integrate these practices into your own visits:
- Is Treatment Working? Detecting Real Change in the Treatment of Child and Adolescent Depression
- AACAP Clinical Update: Collaborative Mental Health Care for Children and Adolescents in Primary Care
Pawlowski is a child and adolescent consulting psychiatrist. She is a division chief at the University of Vermont Medical Center where she focuses on primary care mental health integration within primary care pediatrics, internal medicine, and family medicine.
Clinical Scenario
Lilly is a 15-year-old girl in her sophomore year of high school. Over the course of a month after a romantic and then a friend-group breakup, her parents have been concerned about her increasing tearfulness every day and retreat from activities to avoid social interactions with others that she once enjoyed so much. She has been missing more and more school, saying that she can’t bear to go, and staying in bed during the days, even on weekends. You start her on an SSRI and recommend psychotherapy in the form of CBT offered through your office. She returns to the appointment in 2 weeks with you and then again in another 2 weeks. Her parents and she tell you, “I thought she would be better by now.” You feel stuck with how to proceed in the visit. You have correctly identified the problem as depression, started the recommended evidence-based treatments, but the parents and Lilly are looking to you for something more or different. There are not many or other local resources. When and how do you all determine what “better” looks and feels like? Where do you go from here?
Metrics Can Guide Next Steps
This clinical scenario is not uncommon. As a psychiatrist consultant in primary care, I often encounter the following comment and question: “Someone isn’t feeling better. I have them taking an SSRI and doing psychotherapy. What is the next thing to do?” In discussions with supervisees and in training residents, I often say that you will know that your consultations have made a real impact on providers’ practices when these questions shift from “what’s the next medication or treatment” to a more robust baseline and follow-up inventory of symptoms via common and available metrics (PHQ9A, PSC-17 or 30, SCARED) shared with you at the start, the middle, and at other times of treatment. Such metrics can more meaningfully guide your collaborative clinical discussions and decisions.
Tracking baseline metrics and follow-up with treatment interventions is a transformative approach to clinical care. But, in primary care, it’s common that the question around mental health care may not receive the same robust screening and tracking of symptoms which have the power to more thoughtfully guide decision-making, even though this is common in other forms of patient care which have more routine use of more objective data.
Measurement-based treatment to target approaches are well-studied, but not often or always implemented. They involve providing a baseline metric (PHQ9A, Pediatric Symptom Checklist 17 or 30, GAD7, or SCARED), and tracking that metric for response over time using specific scores for decision points.
An Alternative Clinical Scenario
Consider the following alternative scenario for the above patient using a measurement-based treatment to target approach:
Lilly is a 15-year-old girl in her sophomore year of high school with symptoms concerning for depression. A PHQ9A is administered in your appointment, and she scores 20 out of 30, exceeding the threshold score for 11 for depression. You start her on an SSRI and recommend psychotherapy in the form of CBT offered through your office. She returns to the appointment with you in 2 weeks and then again in another 2 weeks. You obtain a PHQ9A at each appointment, and track the change with her and her parents over time.
You share with her and the family that it is common that there will be fluctuations in measurements, and you know that a score change on the PHQ9A greater than 7 is considered a clinically significant, reliable change. So, a PHQ9 score reduction from 20 to 13 would be meaningful progress. While seeking a score within the normal and non-clinical range, the progress can be tracked in a way that allows a more robust monitoring of treatment response. If the scores do not improve, you can see that and act accordingly. This way of using metrics shifts the conversation from “how are you feeling now and today” to tracking symptoms more broadly and tracking those individual symptoms over time, some of which may improve and some which may be trickier to target.
Such a way of tracking common mental health symptoms with a focus on having data at baseline and throughout treatment allows a provider to change or adapt interventions, and to not chase something that can feel ephemeral, such as “feeling happy or looking better.”
For additional information on the measurement-based treatment to target approach, there are resources that share in more depth the research informing this approach, and other and broader real ways to integrate these practices into your own visits:
- Is Treatment Working? Detecting Real Change in the Treatment of Child and Adolescent Depression
- AACAP Clinical Update: Collaborative Mental Health Care for Children and Adolescents in Primary Care
Pawlowski is a child and adolescent consulting psychiatrist. She is a division chief at the University of Vermont Medical Center where she focuses on primary care mental health integration within primary care pediatrics, internal medicine, and family medicine.
Lessons Learned: What Docs Wish Med Students Knew
Despite 4 years of med school and 3-7 years in residency, when you enter the workforce as a doctor, you still have much to learn. There is only so much your professors and attending physicians can pack in. Going forward, you’ll continue to learn on the job and via continuing education.
Some of that lifelong learning will involve soft skills — how to compassionately work with your patients and their families, for instance. Other lessons will get down to the business of medicine — the paperwork, the work/life balance, and the moral dilemmas you never saw coming. And still others will involve learning how to take care of yourself in the middle of seemingly endless hours on the job.
“We all have things we wish we had known upon starting our careers,” said Daniel Opris, MD, a primary care physician at Ohio-based Executive Medical Centers.
We tapped several veteran physicians and an educator to learn what they wish med students knew as they enter the workforce. We’ve compiled them here to give you a head start on the lessons ahead.
You Won’t Know Everything, and That’s Okay
When you go through your medical training, it can feel overwhelming to absorb all the knowledge your professors and attendings impart. The bottom line, said Shoshana Ungerleider, MD, an internal medicine specialist, is that you shouldn’t worry about it.
David Lenihan, PhD, CEO at Ponce Health Sciences University, agrees. “What we’ve lost in recent years, is the ability to apply your skill set and say, ‘let me take a day and get back to you,’” he said. “Doctors love it when you do that because it shows you can pitch in and work as part of a team.”
Medicine is a collaborative field, said Ungerleider, and learning from others, whether peers, nurses, or specialists, is “not a weakness.” She recommends embracing uncertainty and getting comfortable with the unknown.
You’ll Take Your Work Home With You
Doctors enter the field because they care about their patients and want to help. Successful outcomes are never guaranteed, however, no matter how much you try. The result? Some days you’ll bring home those upsetting and haunting cases, said Lenihan.
“We often believe that we should leave our work at the office, but sometimes you need to bring it home and think it through,” he said. “It can’t overwhelm you, but you should digest what happened.”
When you do, said Lenihan, you’ll come out the other end more empathetic and that helps the healthcare system in the long run. “The more you reflect on your day, the better you’ll get at reading the room and treating your patients.”
Drew Remignanti, MD, a retired emergency medicine physician from New Hampshire, agrees, but puts a different spin on bringing work home.
“We revisit the patient care decisions we made, second-guess ourselves, and worry about our patients’ welfare and outcomes,” he said. “I think it can only lead to better outcomes down the road, however, if you learn from that bad decision, preventing you from committing a similar mistake.”
Burnout Is Real — Make Self-Care a Priority
As a retired physician who spent 40 years practicing medicine, Remignanti experienced the evolution of healthcare as it has become what he calls a “consumer-provider” model. “Productivity didn’t use to be part of the equation, but now it’s the focus,” he said.
The result is burnout, a very real threat to incoming physicians. Remignanti holds that if you are aware of the risk, you can resist it. Part of avoiding burnout is self-care, according to Ungerleider. “The sooner you prioritize your mental, emotional, and physical well-being, the better,” she said. “Balancing work and life may feel impossible at times but taking care of yourself is essential to being a better physician in the long run.”
That means carving out time for exercise, hobbies, and connections outside of the medical field. It also means making sleep and nutrition a priority, even when that feels hard to accomplish. “If you don’t take care of yourself, you can’t take care of others,” added Opris. “It’s so common to lose yourself in your career, but you need to hold onto your physical, emotional, and spiritual self.”
Avoid Relying Too Heavily on Tech
Technology is invading every aspect of our lives — often for the greater good — but in medicine, it’s important to always return to your core knowledge above all else. Case in point, said Opris, the UpToDate app. While it can be a useful tool, it’s important not to become too reliant on it. “UpToDate is expert opinion-based guidance, and it’s a fantastic resource,” he said. “But you need to use your references and knowledge in every case.”
It’s key to remember that every patient is different, and their case may not line up perfectly with the guidance presented in UpToDate or other technology source. Piggybacking on that, Ungerleider added that it’s important to remember medicine is about people, not just conditions.
“It’s easy to focus on mastering the science, but the real art of medicine comes from seeing the whole person in front of you,” she said. “Your patients are more than their diagnoses — they come with complex emotions, life stories, and needs.” Being compassionate, listening carefully, and building trust should match up to your clinical skills.
Partner With Your Patients, Even When It’s Difficult
Perhaps the most difficult lesson of all is remembering that your patients may not always agree with your recommendations and choose to ignore them. After all your years spent learning, there may be times when it feels your education is going to waste.
“Remember that the landscape today is so varied, and that bleeds into medicine,” said Opris. “We go into cases with our own biases, and it’s important to take a step back to reset, every time.”
Opris reminds himself of Sir William Osler’s famous essay, “Aequanimitas,” in which he tells graduating medical students to practice with “coolness and presence of mind under all circumstances.”
Remignanti offers this advice: “Physicians need to be able to partner with their patients and jointly decide which courses of action are most effective,” he said. “Cling to the idea that you are forming a partnership with your patients — what can we together determine is the best course?”
At the same time, the path the patient chooses may not be what’s best for them — potentially even leading to a poor outcome.
“You may not always understand their choices,” said Opris. “But they do have a choice. Think of yourself almost like a consultant.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Despite 4 years of med school and 3-7 years in residency, when you enter the workforce as a doctor, you still have much to learn. There is only so much your professors and attending physicians can pack in. Going forward, you’ll continue to learn on the job and via continuing education.
Some of that lifelong learning will involve soft skills — how to compassionately work with your patients and their families, for instance. Other lessons will get down to the business of medicine — the paperwork, the work/life balance, and the moral dilemmas you never saw coming. And still others will involve learning how to take care of yourself in the middle of seemingly endless hours on the job.
“We all have things we wish we had known upon starting our careers,” said Daniel Opris, MD, a primary care physician at Ohio-based Executive Medical Centers.
We tapped several veteran physicians and an educator to learn what they wish med students knew as they enter the workforce. We’ve compiled them here to give you a head start on the lessons ahead.
You Won’t Know Everything, and That’s Okay
When you go through your medical training, it can feel overwhelming to absorb all the knowledge your professors and attendings impart. The bottom line, said Shoshana Ungerleider, MD, an internal medicine specialist, is that you shouldn’t worry about it.
David Lenihan, PhD, CEO at Ponce Health Sciences University, agrees. “What we’ve lost in recent years, is the ability to apply your skill set and say, ‘let me take a day and get back to you,’” he said. “Doctors love it when you do that because it shows you can pitch in and work as part of a team.”
Medicine is a collaborative field, said Ungerleider, and learning from others, whether peers, nurses, or specialists, is “not a weakness.” She recommends embracing uncertainty and getting comfortable with the unknown.
You’ll Take Your Work Home With You
Doctors enter the field because they care about their patients and want to help. Successful outcomes are never guaranteed, however, no matter how much you try. The result? Some days you’ll bring home those upsetting and haunting cases, said Lenihan.
“We often believe that we should leave our work at the office, but sometimes you need to bring it home and think it through,” he said. “It can’t overwhelm you, but you should digest what happened.”
When you do, said Lenihan, you’ll come out the other end more empathetic and that helps the healthcare system in the long run. “The more you reflect on your day, the better you’ll get at reading the room and treating your patients.”
Drew Remignanti, MD, a retired emergency medicine physician from New Hampshire, agrees, but puts a different spin on bringing work home.
“We revisit the patient care decisions we made, second-guess ourselves, and worry about our patients’ welfare and outcomes,” he said. “I think it can only lead to better outcomes down the road, however, if you learn from that bad decision, preventing you from committing a similar mistake.”
Burnout Is Real — Make Self-Care a Priority
As a retired physician who spent 40 years practicing medicine, Remignanti experienced the evolution of healthcare as it has become what he calls a “consumer-provider” model. “Productivity didn’t use to be part of the equation, but now it’s the focus,” he said.
The result is burnout, a very real threat to incoming physicians. Remignanti holds that if you are aware of the risk, you can resist it. Part of avoiding burnout is self-care, according to Ungerleider. “The sooner you prioritize your mental, emotional, and physical well-being, the better,” she said. “Balancing work and life may feel impossible at times but taking care of yourself is essential to being a better physician in the long run.”
That means carving out time for exercise, hobbies, and connections outside of the medical field. It also means making sleep and nutrition a priority, even when that feels hard to accomplish. “If you don’t take care of yourself, you can’t take care of others,” added Opris. “It’s so common to lose yourself in your career, but you need to hold onto your physical, emotional, and spiritual self.”
Avoid Relying Too Heavily on Tech
Technology is invading every aspect of our lives — often for the greater good — but in medicine, it’s important to always return to your core knowledge above all else. Case in point, said Opris, the UpToDate app. While it can be a useful tool, it’s important not to become too reliant on it. “UpToDate is expert opinion-based guidance, and it’s a fantastic resource,” he said. “But you need to use your references and knowledge in every case.”
It’s key to remember that every patient is different, and their case may not line up perfectly with the guidance presented in UpToDate or other technology source. Piggybacking on that, Ungerleider added that it’s important to remember medicine is about people, not just conditions.
“It’s easy to focus on mastering the science, but the real art of medicine comes from seeing the whole person in front of you,” she said. “Your patients are more than their diagnoses — they come with complex emotions, life stories, and needs.” Being compassionate, listening carefully, and building trust should match up to your clinical skills.
Partner With Your Patients, Even When It’s Difficult
Perhaps the most difficult lesson of all is remembering that your patients may not always agree with your recommendations and choose to ignore them. After all your years spent learning, there may be times when it feels your education is going to waste.
“Remember that the landscape today is so varied, and that bleeds into medicine,” said Opris. “We go into cases with our own biases, and it’s important to take a step back to reset, every time.”
Opris reminds himself of Sir William Osler’s famous essay, “Aequanimitas,” in which he tells graduating medical students to practice with “coolness and presence of mind under all circumstances.”
Remignanti offers this advice: “Physicians need to be able to partner with their patients and jointly decide which courses of action are most effective,” he said. “Cling to the idea that you are forming a partnership with your patients — what can we together determine is the best course?”
At the same time, the path the patient chooses may not be what’s best for them — potentially even leading to a poor outcome.
“You may not always understand their choices,” said Opris. “But they do have a choice. Think of yourself almost like a consultant.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Despite 4 years of med school and 3-7 years in residency, when you enter the workforce as a doctor, you still have much to learn. There is only so much your professors and attending physicians can pack in. Going forward, you’ll continue to learn on the job and via continuing education.
Some of that lifelong learning will involve soft skills — how to compassionately work with your patients and their families, for instance. Other lessons will get down to the business of medicine — the paperwork, the work/life balance, and the moral dilemmas you never saw coming. And still others will involve learning how to take care of yourself in the middle of seemingly endless hours on the job.
“We all have things we wish we had known upon starting our careers,” said Daniel Opris, MD, a primary care physician at Ohio-based Executive Medical Centers.
We tapped several veteran physicians and an educator to learn what they wish med students knew as they enter the workforce. We’ve compiled them here to give you a head start on the lessons ahead.
You Won’t Know Everything, and That’s Okay
When you go through your medical training, it can feel overwhelming to absorb all the knowledge your professors and attendings impart. The bottom line, said Shoshana Ungerleider, MD, an internal medicine specialist, is that you shouldn’t worry about it.
David Lenihan, PhD, CEO at Ponce Health Sciences University, agrees. “What we’ve lost in recent years, is the ability to apply your skill set and say, ‘let me take a day and get back to you,’” he said. “Doctors love it when you do that because it shows you can pitch in and work as part of a team.”
Medicine is a collaborative field, said Ungerleider, and learning from others, whether peers, nurses, or specialists, is “not a weakness.” She recommends embracing uncertainty and getting comfortable with the unknown.
You’ll Take Your Work Home With You
Doctors enter the field because they care about their patients and want to help. Successful outcomes are never guaranteed, however, no matter how much you try. The result? Some days you’ll bring home those upsetting and haunting cases, said Lenihan.
“We often believe that we should leave our work at the office, but sometimes you need to bring it home and think it through,” he said. “It can’t overwhelm you, but you should digest what happened.”
When you do, said Lenihan, you’ll come out the other end more empathetic and that helps the healthcare system in the long run. “The more you reflect on your day, the better you’ll get at reading the room and treating your patients.”
Drew Remignanti, MD, a retired emergency medicine physician from New Hampshire, agrees, but puts a different spin on bringing work home.
“We revisit the patient care decisions we made, second-guess ourselves, and worry about our patients’ welfare and outcomes,” he said. “I think it can only lead to better outcomes down the road, however, if you learn from that bad decision, preventing you from committing a similar mistake.”
Burnout Is Real — Make Self-Care a Priority
As a retired physician who spent 40 years practicing medicine, Remignanti experienced the evolution of healthcare as it has become what he calls a “consumer-provider” model. “Productivity didn’t use to be part of the equation, but now it’s the focus,” he said.
The result is burnout, a very real threat to incoming physicians. Remignanti holds that if you are aware of the risk, you can resist it. Part of avoiding burnout is self-care, according to Ungerleider. “The sooner you prioritize your mental, emotional, and physical well-being, the better,” she said. “Balancing work and life may feel impossible at times but taking care of yourself is essential to being a better physician in the long run.”
That means carving out time for exercise, hobbies, and connections outside of the medical field. It also means making sleep and nutrition a priority, even when that feels hard to accomplish. “If you don’t take care of yourself, you can’t take care of others,” added Opris. “It’s so common to lose yourself in your career, but you need to hold onto your physical, emotional, and spiritual self.”
Avoid Relying Too Heavily on Tech
Technology is invading every aspect of our lives — often for the greater good — but in medicine, it’s important to always return to your core knowledge above all else. Case in point, said Opris, the UpToDate app. While it can be a useful tool, it’s important not to become too reliant on it. “UpToDate is expert opinion-based guidance, and it’s a fantastic resource,” he said. “But you need to use your references and knowledge in every case.”
It’s key to remember that every patient is different, and their case may not line up perfectly with the guidance presented in UpToDate or other technology source. Piggybacking on that, Ungerleider added that it’s important to remember medicine is about people, not just conditions.
“It’s easy to focus on mastering the science, but the real art of medicine comes from seeing the whole person in front of you,” she said. “Your patients are more than their diagnoses — they come with complex emotions, life stories, and needs.” Being compassionate, listening carefully, and building trust should match up to your clinical skills.
Partner With Your Patients, Even When It’s Difficult
Perhaps the most difficult lesson of all is remembering that your patients may not always agree with your recommendations and choose to ignore them. After all your years spent learning, there may be times when it feels your education is going to waste.
“Remember that the landscape today is so varied, and that bleeds into medicine,” said Opris. “We go into cases with our own biases, and it’s important to take a step back to reset, every time.”
Opris reminds himself of Sir William Osler’s famous essay, “Aequanimitas,” in which he tells graduating medical students to practice with “coolness and presence of mind under all circumstances.”
Remignanti offers this advice: “Physicians need to be able to partner with their patients and jointly decide which courses of action are most effective,” he said. “Cling to the idea that you are forming a partnership with your patients — what can we together determine is the best course?”
At the same time, the path the patient chooses may not be what’s best for them — potentially even leading to a poor outcome.
“You may not always understand their choices,” said Opris. “But they do have a choice. Think of yourself almost like a consultant.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Social Determinants of Health: The Impact on Pediatric Health and Well-Being
Case vignette: A 16-year-old Nepali-born English-speaking adolescent presents for a well-child visit and notes concerns for anxiety, depression, and a history of trauma. She resides with her parents who work in hospitality with limited time off, and thus she presented for the initial office visit with a neighbor. Parents were not readily available to discuss treatment recommendations, including medication options. The teen shares a number of challenges that makes coming to appointments difficult. You also notice that the patient currently is not enrolled in insurance, though she appears eligible.
The above vignette highlights various social issues and concerns that impact access to healthcare and overall health/well-being. Social determinants of health (SDOH) and factors centered on mental health are now widely known to impact pediatric health and wellbeing. The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion defines SDOH as “conditions in the environments in which people are born, live, learn, work, play, worship, and age that affect a wide range of health, functioning, and quality-of-life outcomes and risks.” SDOH can be grouped into five domains: Economic Stability, Education Access and Quality, Health Care Access and Quality, Neighborhood and Built Environment, and Social and Community Context.1
Additionally, when considering determinants that impact the mental health of children, it is prudent to consider parental psychosocial factors and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), such as witnessing interpersonal violence, child abuse, parental substance use, and parental depression.2 All these factors have been shown to impact an individual’s mental and physical health not only contemporaneously but also later in life.3
Screening Tool for Pediatric Social Histories
developed by Kenyon et al,4 with further derivations from Colvin et al.5 Utilizing this tool can assist providers with identifying social needs.
The tool begins with a framing statement — “Let me ask you some questions I ask every family” — then proceeds to discuss relevant topics as shared below:
I: Income; Insurance
- Do you have any concerns about making ends meet?
- Do you have any concerns about your child’s health insurance?
H: Hunger, Housing Conditions; Homeless
- Do you have any concerns about having enough food?
- Have you ever been worried whether your food would run out before you got money to buy more?
- Within the past year has the food you bought ever not lasted, and you didn’t have money to get more?
- Do you have any concerns about poor housing conditions like mice, mold, or cockroaches?
- Do you have any concerns about being evicted or not being able to pay the rent?
- Do you have any concerns about not being able to pay your mortgage?
E: Education; Ensuring Safety (Violence)
- Do you have any concerns about your child’s educational needs?
- [DO NOT ASK IN FRONT OF CHILD 3 OR OLDER OR IN FRONT OF OTHER PARTNER] “From speaking to families, I have learned that violence in the home is common and now I ask all families about violence in the home. Do you have any concerns about violence in your home?”
L: Legal status (Immigration)
- What hospital was your child born in?
- If not in the United States: “Are you aware that your child may be eligible for benefits even though they were not born in the US? If you would like, I can have a social worker come talk to you about some possible benefits your child may be eligible for. Would you like me to do that?”
P: Power of Attorney; Guardianship
- Are you the biological mother or father of this child?
- [If not] “Can you show me the power of attorney or guardianship document you have?”
- **PATIENTS >17+ with Mental Incapacity: Ask for Guardianship.
This tool can help with identifying families with significant social needs so that one can attain further historical information and subsequently share resources to assist with any challenges.
Consider the Role of Adverse Childhood Experiences
Additionally, as noted, ACEs often play an important role in overall health and well-being; they include experiencing childhood abuse, neglect, and/or household dysfunction. The impact of these early exposures can lead to toxic stress that can negatively alter the brain and the body’s response to stress over time.3 There are various tools readily available online that can assist with identifying ACEs and interpreting their prevalence. The American Academy of Pediatrics has an updated page of commonly used screening tools. Early identification and intervention can help mitigate the impact of these experiences on long-term outcomes.
Important Considerations Regarding Screening for SDOH and/or ACEs:
- Please consider if screening is helpful in your space, recognizing that there are benefits and potential ethical considerations to screen or not. Ensure an interdisciplinary approach if screening is implemented to ensure that the patient’s experience and well-being is prioritized.
- Try to be intentional in your communication with parents. The patient and family are our teachers and know best what they need.
- Consider what is available in your community and what can be offered to ensure that parents and families are appropriate and eligible for a particular resource.
- Encourage continuous collaboration and partnership with community providers who offer resources that a family may benefit from to ensure that the resource continues to be available.
Returning to the Vignette
Administering the IHELP tool has led to identifying that the adolescent’s insurance has lapsed, but she remains eligible, and the family seeks support to re-enroll. The family shares concerns regarding educational needs, as the child has not attended school for the past year and is not on track to graduate. The IHELP tool also helps you identify inconsistent transportation availability. Ultimately, a social work consultation is placed which assists with re-enrolling in insurance for the child and obtaining a bus pass for in-person visits. The patient is also supported in enrolling in the use of a videoconferencing platform for virtual visits. You and your team reach out to the school, which provides valuable information regarding the child’s status and how best to support re-engagement. On follow-up, she is now readily engaged in appointments and shares she is no longer worrying about transportation, which has been helpful. She has started initial conversations with the school and has a condensed schedule for reintegration.
Dr. Abdul-Karim, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, is assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
References
1. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, US Department of Health & Human Services. Social Determinants of Health. https://odphp.health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health
2. Cotton N and Shim R. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2022 Nov;61(11):1385-1389. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2022.04.020.
3. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs): Preventing Early Trauma to Improve Adult Health. https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/aces/index.html.
4. Kenyon C et al. Pediatrics. 2007 Sep;120(3):e734-e738. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-2495.
5. Colvin JD et al. Acad Pediatr. 2016 Mar;16(2):168-174. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2015.06.001.
Case vignette: A 16-year-old Nepali-born English-speaking adolescent presents for a well-child visit and notes concerns for anxiety, depression, and a history of trauma. She resides with her parents who work in hospitality with limited time off, and thus she presented for the initial office visit with a neighbor. Parents were not readily available to discuss treatment recommendations, including medication options. The teen shares a number of challenges that makes coming to appointments difficult. You also notice that the patient currently is not enrolled in insurance, though she appears eligible.
The above vignette highlights various social issues and concerns that impact access to healthcare and overall health/well-being. Social determinants of health (SDOH) and factors centered on mental health are now widely known to impact pediatric health and wellbeing. The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion defines SDOH as “conditions in the environments in which people are born, live, learn, work, play, worship, and age that affect a wide range of health, functioning, and quality-of-life outcomes and risks.” SDOH can be grouped into five domains: Economic Stability, Education Access and Quality, Health Care Access and Quality, Neighborhood and Built Environment, and Social and Community Context.1
Additionally, when considering determinants that impact the mental health of children, it is prudent to consider parental psychosocial factors and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), such as witnessing interpersonal violence, child abuse, parental substance use, and parental depression.2 All these factors have been shown to impact an individual’s mental and physical health not only contemporaneously but also later in life.3
Screening Tool for Pediatric Social Histories
developed by Kenyon et al,4 with further derivations from Colvin et al.5 Utilizing this tool can assist providers with identifying social needs.
The tool begins with a framing statement — “Let me ask you some questions I ask every family” — then proceeds to discuss relevant topics as shared below:
I: Income; Insurance
- Do you have any concerns about making ends meet?
- Do you have any concerns about your child’s health insurance?
H: Hunger, Housing Conditions; Homeless
- Do you have any concerns about having enough food?
- Have you ever been worried whether your food would run out before you got money to buy more?
- Within the past year has the food you bought ever not lasted, and you didn’t have money to get more?
- Do you have any concerns about poor housing conditions like mice, mold, or cockroaches?
- Do you have any concerns about being evicted or not being able to pay the rent?
- Do you have any concerns about not being able to pay your mortgage?
E: Education; Ensuring Safety (Violence)
- Do you have any concerns about your child’s educational needs?
- [DO NOT ASK IN FRONT OF CHILD 3 OR OLDER OR IN FRONT OF OTHER PARTNER] “From speaking to families, I have learned that violence in the home is common and now I ask all families about violence in the home. Do you have any concerns about violence in your home?”
L: Legal status (Immigration)
- What hospital was your child born in?
- If not in the United States: “Are you aware that your child may be eligible for benefits even though they were not born in the US? If you would like, I can have a social worker come talk to you about some possible benefits your child may be eligible for. Would you like me to do that?”
P: Power of Attorney; Guardianship
- Are you the biological mother or father of this child?
- [If not] “Can you show me the power of attorney or guardianship document you have?”
- **PATIENTS >17+ with Mental Incapacity: Ask for Guardianship.
This tool can help with identifying families with significant social needs so that one can attain further historical information and subsequently share resources to assist with any challenges.
Consider the Role of Adverse Childhood Experiences
Additionally, as noted, ACEs often play an important role in overall health and well-being; they include experiencing childhood abuse, neglect, and/or household dysfunction. The impact of these early exposures can lead to toxic stress that can negatively alter the brain and the body’s response to stress over time.3 There are various tools readily available online that can assist with identifying ACEs and interpreting their prevalence. The American Academy of Pediatrics has an updated page of commonly used screening tools. Early identification and intervention can help mitigate the impact of these experiences on long-term outcomes.
Important Considerations Regarding Screening for SDOH and/or ACEs:
- Please consider if screening is helpful in your space, recognizing that there are benefits and potential ethical considerations to screen or not. Ensure an interdisciplinary approach if screening is implemented to ensure that the patient’s experience and well-being is prioritized.
- Try to be intentional in your communication with parents. The patient and family are our teachers and know best what they need.
- Consider what is available in your community and what can be offered to ensure that parents and families are appropriate and eligible for a particular resource.
- Encourage continuous collaboration and partnership with community providers who offer resources that a family may benefit from to ensure that the resource continues to be available.
Returning to the Vignette
Administering the IHELP tool has led to identifying that the adolescent’s insurance has lapsed, but she remains eligible, and the family seeks support to re-enroll. The family shares concerns regarding educational needs, as the child has not attended school for the past year and is not on track to graduate. The IHELP tool also helps you identify inconsistent transportation availability. Ultimately, a social work consultation is placed which assists with re-enrolling in insurance for the child and obtaining a bus pass for in-person visits. The patient is also supported in enrolling in the use of a videoconferencing platform for virtual visits. You and your team reach out to the school, which provides valuable information regarding the child’s status and how best to support re-engagement. On follow-up, she is now readily engaged in appointments and shares she is no longer worrying about transportation, which has been helpful. She has started initial conversations with the school and has a condensed schedule for reintegration.
Dr. Abdul-Karim, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, is assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
References
1. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, US Department of Health & Human Services. Social Determinants of Health. https://odphp.health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health
2. Cotton N and Shim R. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2022 Nov;61(11):1385-1389. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2022.04.020.
3. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs): Preventing Early Trauma to Improve Adult Health. https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/aces/index.html.
4. Kenyon C et al. Pediatrics. 2007 Sep;120(3):e734-e738. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-2495.
5. Colvin JD et al. Acad Pediatr. 2016 Mar;16(2):168-174. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2015.06.001.
Case vignette: A 16-year-old Nepali-born English-speaking adolescent presents for a well-child visit and notes concerns for anxiety, depression, and a history of trauma. She resides with her parents who work in hospitality with limited time off, and thus she presented for the initial office visit with a neighbor. Parents were not readily available to discuss treatment recommendations, including medication options. The teen shares a number of challenges that makes coming to appointments difficult. You also notice that the patient currently is not enrolled in insurance, though she appears eligible.
The above vignette highlights various social issues and concerns that impact access to healthcare and overall health/well-being. Social determinants of health (SDOH) and factors centered on mental health are now widely known to impact pediatric health and wellbeing. The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion defines SDOH as “conditions in the environments in which people are born, live, learn, work, play, worship, and age that affect a wide range of health, functioning, and quality-of-life outcomes and risks.” SDOH can be grouped into five domains: Economic Stability, Education Access and Quality, Health Care Access and Quality, Neighborhood and Built Environment, and Social and Community Context.1
Additionally, when considering determinants that impact the mental health of children, it is prudent to consider parental psychosocial factors and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), such as witnessing interpersonal violence, child abuse, parental substance use, and parental depression.2 All these factors have been shown to impact an individual’s mental and physical health not only contemporaneously but also later in life.3
Screening Tool for Pediatric Social Histories
developed by Kenyon et al,4 with further derivations from Colvin et al.5 Utilizing this tool can assist providers with identifying social needs.
The tool begins with a framing statement — “Let me ask you some questions I ask every family” — then proceeds to discuss relevant topics as shared below:
I: Income; Insurance
- Do you have any concerns about making ends meet?
- Do you have any concerns about your child’s health insurance?
H: Hunger, Housing Conditions; Homeless
- Do you have any concerns about having enough food?
- Have you ever been worried whether your food would run out before you got money to buy more?
- Within the past year has the food you bought ever not lasted, and you didn’t have money to get more?
- Do you have any concerns about poor housing conditions like mice, mold, or cockroaches?
- Do you have any concerns about being evicted or not being able to pay the rent?
- Do you have any concerns about not being able to pay your mortgage?
E: Education; Ensuring Safety (Violence)
- Do you have any concerns about your child’s educational needs?
- [DO NOT ASK IN FRONT OF CHILD 3 OR OLDER OR IN FRONT OF OTHER PARTNER] “From speaking to families, I have learned that violence in the home is common and now I ask all families about violence in the home. Do you have any concerns about violence in your home?”
L: Legal status (Immigration)
- What hospital was your child born in?
- If not in the United States: “Are you aware that your child may be eligible for benefits even though they were not born in the US? If you would like, I can have a social worker come talk to you about some possible benefits your child may be eligible for. Would you like me to do that?”
P: Power of Attorney; Guardianship
- Are you the biological mother or father of this child?
- [If not] “Can you show me the power of attorney or guardianship document you have?”
- **PATIENTS >17+ with Mental Incapacity: Ask for Guardianship.
This tool can help with identifying families with significant social needs so that one can attain further historical information and subsequently share resources to assist with any challenges.
Consider the Role of Adverse Childhood Experiences
Additionally, as noted, ACEs often play an important role in overall health and well-being; they include experiencing childhood abuse, neglect, and/or household dysfunction. The impact of these early exposures can lead to toxic stress that can negatively alter the brain and the body’s response to stress over time.3 There are various tools readily available online that can assist with identifying ACEs and interpreting their prevalence. The American Academy of Pediatrics has an updated page of commonly used screening tools. Early identification and intervention can help mitigate the impact of these experiences on long-term outcomes.
Important Considerations Regarding Screening for SDOH and/or ACEs:
- Please consider if screening is helpful in your space, recognizing that there are benefits and potential ethical considerations to screen or not. Ensure an interdisciplinary approach if screening is implemented to ensure that the patient’s experience and well-being is prioritized.
- Try to be intentional in your communication with parents. The patient and family are our teachers and know best what they need.
- Consider what is available in your community and what can be offered to ensure that parents and families are appropriate and eligible for a particular resource.
- Encourage continuous collaboration and partnership with community providers who offer resources that a family may benefit from to ensure that the resource continues to be available.
Returning to the Vignette
Administering the IHELP tool has led to identifying that the adolescent’s insurance has lapsed, but she remains eligible, and the family seeks support to re-enroll. The family shares concerns regarding educational needs, as the child has not attended school for the past year and is not on track to graduate. The IHELP tool also helps you identify inconsistent transportation availability. Ultimately, a social work consultation is placed which assists with re-enrolling in insurance for the child and obtaining a bus pass for in-person visits. The patient is also supported in enrolling in the use of a videoconferencing platform for virtual visits. You and your team reach out to the school, which provides valuable information regarding the child’s status and how best to support re-engagement. On follow-up, she is now readily engaged in appointments and shares she is no longer worrying about transportation, which has been helpful. She has started initial conversations with the school and has a condensed schedule for reintegration.
Dr. Abdul-Karim, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, is assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
References
1. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, US Department of Health & Human Services. Social Determinants of Health. https://odphp.health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health
2. Cotton N and Shim R. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2022 Nov;61(11):1385-1389. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2022.04.020.
3. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs): Preventing Early Trauma to Improve Adult Health. https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/aces/index.html.
4. Kenyon C et al. Pediatrics. 2007 Sep;120(3):e734-e738. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-2495.
5. Colvin JD et al. Acad Pediatr. 2016 Mar;16(2):168-174. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2015.06.001.
Children With Severe Atopic Dermatitis Catch Up on Growth With Dupilumab
AMSTERDAM — , revealed a post hoc trial analysis.
The research was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
The trial included a “rigorously selected … well-characterized, well-studied” population of children aged 6-11 years, said presenter Alan D. Irvine, MD, DSc, professor of dermatology, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
It showed that “severe atopic dermatitis does cause restriction of growth, as well as a higher weight, and therefore obviously a higher BMI [body mass index].”
He continued, however, that children at the lower percentiles of height receiving prompt treatment with dupilumab (Dupixent) “were able to rapidly move through the centiles over the 16 weeks of the study, and that may be the window for catch-up growth … when children are growing rapidly.”
Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of dermatology, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, who was not involved in the study, said that she was “surprised” at the degree of growth achieved over the study period, as height is not something that jumps up “overnight.”
“On the other hand, it fits with my experience with children who’ve had the brakes on all of their life due to inflammation, whether it be height, going to school, sleeping — everything is sort of put on pause by this terrible inflammatory process,” she said.
“When you take the brakes off, they get to be who they are going to be,” Kirkorian added. “So I was surprised by the speed of it, but not by the fact that height was acquired.”
Her belief is that in the pre-dupilumab era, severe atopic dermatitis was often insufficiently controlled, so children were “smaller than you would predict from parental height,” and the treatment is “allowing them to reach their genetic potential.”
Post Hoc Analysis
In his presentation, Irvine emphasized that it has been clearly demonstrated that adolescents with moderate and severe atopic dermatitis have a significantly higher likelihood of being below the 25th percentile of height on growth reference charts.
Such children are also at a higher risk of having low bone mineral density and low serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels . While data presented at the EADV 2023 Congress showed that dupilumab significantly increased serum levels of bone ALP compared with placebo, the underlying mechanism remains unclear.
For the current analysis, Irvine and colleagues determined that the proportion of children aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis and lower stature reach a ≥ 5 centile improvement in height following 16 weeks of dupilumab treatment.
They examined data from the LIBERTY AD PEDS trial, in which patients aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis were randomized to 300 mg dupilumab every 4 weeks or placebo along with a mild or moderately potent topical corticosteroid. The study found that, overall, dupilumab was associated with significant improvements in signs, symptoms, and quality of life compared with placebo.
Height measures at baseline revealed that “more boys and more girls were below the 50th centile than you would predict for a healthy, normal control population,” Irvine said. “If we look at weight, we see the opposite,” he continued, “with a disproportionate number of boys and girls who are above the 50th centile for weight at baseline.”
Consequently, “we’re seeing these children who are shorter and heavier than the predicted healthy weight range and, as a result, obviously have higher BMI,” Irvine noted, with 67% girls and 62% boys found to have a higher BMI than normal for their age.
After 16 weeks of treatment with dupilumab, there was a much greater gain in height than that seen among those on placebo, with the most pronounced effect seen in children who had the lowest height at baseline. Indeed, among children in the lowest 25% height percentile at baseline, 30.6% on dupilumab vs 11.9% on placebo experienced an increase in height of 5 centiles or more(P < .05).
“This reflects what we see in clinical practice,” Irvine said. “Children often grow dramatically on treatment for atopic dermatitis.”
Among patients with a baseline height below the 30th percentile, 31.9% treated with dupilumab vs 11.1% treated with placebo gained at least 5 centiles in height. The figures for children below the 40th height percentile at baseline were 31.3% vs 15.5% (P < .05 for both).
Although there remained a marked difference in the proportion of children below the 50th height percentile at baseline gaining 5 centiles or more in height, at 29.0% with dupilumab versus 15.7% with placebo, it was no longer significant.
“So the effect of catch-up growth, or growth through the centiles, is most marked in those who are in the 40th centile or below,” Irvine said, indicating that the “more growth restricted kids have much more potential to catch up.”
‘Convincing’ Data
Overall, Kirkorian said in the interview, the data are “convincing” and support her view that severe atopic dermatitis is a “terrible chronic disease that we really underappreciate.” Atopic dermatitis, she added, “should get the respect that any severe chronic illness would have, whether that be arthritis, diabetes, or cardiac disease, because it is a systemic disorder that … profoundly affects quality of life, every minute of every day.”
However, “we don’t get all the referrals we should, until the child has suffered for years and years, and the family has suffered,” as there is a bias that it can be outgrown — although not everybody does — and it “doesn’t look as conspicuous as other chronic skin disorders,” such as psoriasis.
“Now with this study,” Kirkorian said, “it gives us a really compelling point to make to parents, to the community, and to insurers that not only are we affecting the quality of life from the itch standpoint [with dupilumab] but we may have long profound effects on growth and bone health.”
The research was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Irvine declared relationships with AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAI, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Dermavant, Eli Lily, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, UCB, DS Biopharma, and Inflazome. Kirkorian declared relationships with Dermavant, Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Incyte.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AMSTERDAM — , revealed a post hoc trial analysis.
The research was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
The trial included a “rigorously selected … well-characterized, well-studied” population of children aged 6-11 years, said presenter Alan D. Irvine, MD, DSc, professor of dermatology, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
It showed that “severe atopic dermatitis does cause restriction of growth, as well as a higher weight, and therefore obviously a higher BMI [body mass index].”
He continued, however, that children at the lower percentiles of height receiving prompt treatment with dupilumab (Dupixent) “were able to rapidly move through the centiles over the 16 weeks of the study, and that may be the window for catch-up growth … when children are growing rapidly.”
Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of dermatology, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, who was not involved in the study, said that she was “surprised” at the degree of growth achieved over the study period, as height is not something that jumps up “overnight.”
“On the other hand, it fits with my experience with children who’ve had the brakes on all of their life due to inflammation, whether it be height, going to school, sleeping — everything is sort of put on pause by this terrible inflammatory process,” she said.
“When you take the brakes off, they get to be who they are going to be,” Kirkorian added. “So I was surprised by the speed of it, but not by the fact that height was acquired.”
Her belief is that in the pre-dupilumab era, severe atopic dermatitis was often insufficiently controlled, so children were “smaller than you would predict from parental height,” and the treatment is “allowing them to reach their genetic potential.”
Post Hoc Analysis
In his presentation, Irvine emphasized that it has been clearly demonstrated that adolescents with moderate and severe atopic dermatitis have a significantly higher likelihood of being below the 25th percentile of height on growth reference charts.
Such children are also at a higher risk of having low bone mineral density and low serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels . While data presented at the EADV 2023 Congress showed that dupilumab significantly increased serum levels of bone ALP compared with placebo, the underlying mechanism remains unclear.
For the current analysis, Irvine and colleagues determined that the proportion of children aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis and lower stature reach a ≥ 5 centile improvement in height following 16 weeks of dupilumab treatment.
They examined data from the LIBERTY AD PEDS trial, in which patients aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis were randomized to 300 mg dupilumab every 4 weeks or placebo along with a mild or moderately potent topical corticosteroid. The study found that, overall, dupilumab was associated with significant improvements in signs, symptoms, and quality of life compared with placebo.
Height measures at baseline revealed that “more boys and more girls were below the 50th centile than you would predict for a healthy, normal control population,” Irvine said. “If we look at weight, we see the opposite,” he continued, “with a disproportionate number of boys and girls who are above the 50th centile for weight at baseline.”
Consequently, “we’re seeing these children who are shorter and heavier than the predicted healthy weight range and, as a result, obviously have higher BMI,” Irvine noted, with 67% girls and 62% boys found to have a higher BMI than normal for their age.
After 16 weeks of treatment with dupilumab, there was a much greater gain in height than that seen among those on placebo, with the most pronounced effect seen in children who had the lowest height at baseline. Indeed, among children in the lowest 25% height percentile at baseline, 30.6% on dupilumab vs 11.9% on placebo experienced an increase in height of 5 centiles or more(P < .05).
“This reflects what we see in clinical practice,” Irvine said. “Children often grow dramatically on treatment for atopic dermatitis.”
Among patients with a baseline height below the 30th percentile, 31.9% treated with dupilumab vs 11.1% treated with placebo gained at least 5 centiles in height. The figures for children below the 40th height percentile at baseline were 31.3% vs 15.5% (P < .05 for both).
Although there remained a marked difference in the proportion of children below the 50th height percentile at baseline gaining 5 centiles or more in height, at 29.0% with dupilumab versus 15.7% with placebo, it was no longer significant.
“So the effect of catch-up growth, or growth through the centiles, is most marked in those who are in the 40th centile or below,” Irvine said, indicating that the “more growth restricted kids have much more potential to catch up.”
‘Convincing’ Data
Overall, Kirkorian said in the interview, the data are “convincing” and support her view that severe atopic dermatitis is a “terrible chronic disease that we really underappreciate.” Atopic dermatitis, she added, “should get the respect that any severe chronic illness would have, whether that be arthritis, diabetes, or cardiac disease, because it is a systemic disorder that … profoundly affects quality of life, every minute of every day.”
However, “we don’t get all the referrals we should, until the child has suffered for years and years, and the family has suffered,” as there is a bias that it can be outgrown — although not everybody does — and it “doesn’t look as conspicuous as other chronic skin disorders,” such as psoriasis.
“Now with this study,” Kirkorian said, “it gives us a really compelling point to make to parents, to the community, and to insurers that not only are we affecting the quality of life from the itch standpoint [with dupilumab] but we may have long profound effects on growth and bone health.”
The research was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Irvine declared relationships with AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAI, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Dermavant, Eli Lily, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, UCB, DS Biopharma, and Inflazome. Kirkorian declared relationships with Dermavant, Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Incyte.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AMSTERDAM — , revealed a post hoc trial analysis.
The research was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
The trial included a “rigorously selected … well-characterized, well-studied” population of children aged 6-11 years, said presenter Alan D. Irvine, MD, DSc, professor of dermatology, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
It showed that “severe atopic dermatitis does cause restriction of growth, as well as a higher weight, and therefore obviously a higher BMI [body mass index].”
He continued, however, that children at the lower percentiles of height receiving prompt treatment with dupilumab (Dupixent) “were able to rapidly move through the centiles over the 16 weeks of the study, and that may be the window for catch-up growth … when children are growing rapidly.”
Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of dermatology, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, who was not involved in the study, said that she was “surprised” at the degree of growth achieved over the study period, as height is not something that jumps up “overnight.”
“On the other hand, it fits with my experience with children who’ve had the brakes on all of their life due to inflammation, whether it be height, going to school, sleeping — everything is sort of put on pause by this terrible inflammatory process,” she said.
“When you take the brakes off, they get to be who they are going to be,” Kirkorian added. “So I was surprised by the speed of it, but not by the fact that height was acquired.”
Her belief is that in the pre-dupilumab era, severe atopic dermatitis was often insufficiently controlled, so children were “smaller than you would predict from parental height,” and the treatment is “allowing them to reach their genetic potential.”
Post Hoc Analysis
In his presentation, Irvine emphasized that it has been clearly demonstrated that adolescents with moderate and severe atopic dermatitis have a significantly higher likelihood of being below the 25th percentile of height on growth reference charts.
Such children are also at a higher risk of having low bone mineral density and low serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels . While data presented at the EADV 2023 Congress showed that dupilumab significantly increased serum levels of bone ALP compared with placebo, the underlying mechanism remains unclear.
For the current analysis, Irvine and colleagues determined that the proportion of children aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis and lower stature reach a ≥ 5 centile improvement in height following 16 weeks of dupilumab treatment.
They examined data from the LIBERTY AD PEDS trial, in which patients aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis were randomized to 300 mg dupilumab every 4 weeks or placebo along with a mild or moderately potent topical corticosteroid. The study found that, overall, dupilumab was associated with significant improvements in signs, symptoms, and quality of life compared with placebo.
Height measures at baseline revealed that “more boys and more girls were below the 50th centile than you would predict for a healthy, normal control population,” Irvine said. “If we look at weight, we see the opposite,” he continued, “with a disproportionate number of boys and girls who are above the 50th centile for weight at baseline.”
Consequently, “we’re seeing these children who are shorter and heavier than the predicted healthy weight range and, as a result, obviously have higher BMI,” Irvine noted, with 67% girls and 62% boys found to have a higher BMI than normal for their age.
After 16 weeks of treatment with dupilumab, there was a much greater gain in height than that seen among those on placebo, with the most pronounced effect seen in children who had the lowest height at baseline. Indeed, among children in the lowest 25% height percentile at baseline, 30.6% on dupilumab vs 11.9% on placebo experienced an increase in height of 5 centiles or more(P < .05).
“This reflects what we see in clinical practice,” Irvine said. “Children often grow dramatically on treatment for atopic dermatitis.”
Among patients with a baseline height below the 30th percentile, 31.9% treated with dupilumab vs 11.1% treated with placebo gained at least 5 centiles in height. The figures for children below the 40th height percentile at baseline were 31.3% vs 15.5% (P < .05 for both).
Although there remained a marked difference in the proportion of children below the 50th height percentile at baseline gaining 5 centiles or more in height, at 29.0% with dupilumab versus 15.7% with placebo, it was no longer significant.
“So the effect of catch-up growth, or growth through the centiles, is most marked in those who are in the 40th centile or below,” Irvine said, indicating that the “more growth restricted kids have much more potential to catch up.”
‘Convincing’ Data
Overall, Kirkorian said in the interview, the data are “convincing” and support her view that severe atopic dermatitis is a “terrible chronic disease that we really underappreciate.” Atopic dermatitis, she added, “should get the respect that any severe chronic illness would have, whether that be arthritis, diabetes, or cardiac disease, because it is a systemic disorder that … profoundly affects quality of life, every minute of every day.”
However, “we don’t get all the referrals we should, until the child has suffered for years and years, and the family has suffered,” as there is a bias that it can be outgrown — although not everybody does — and it “doesn’t look as conspicuous as other chronic skin disorders,” such as psoriasis.
“Now with this study,” Kirkorian said, “it gives us a really compelling point to make to parents, to the community, and to insurers that not only are we affecting the quality of life from the itch standpoint [with dupilumab] but we may have long profound effects on growth and bone health.”
The research was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Irvine declared relationships with AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAI, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Dermavant, Eli Lily, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, UCB, DS Biopharma, and Inflazome. Kirkorian declared relationships with Dermavant, Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Incyte.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EADV 2024
Nemolizumab Benefits for Atopic Dermatitis Maintained in Long-Term Follow-Up Study
(AD), revealed an interim analysis of the ARCADIA open-label extension study.
The research was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
The results showed nemolizumab was associated with “ongoing clinically meaningful improvements in itch, skin lesions, and sleep disturbance,” said study presenter Diamant Thaçi, MD, PhD, of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine, University of Lü̈beck in Germany.
Moreover, “patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life ... continued to improve over 56 weeks of treatment.” In addition, Thaçi added, the “safety data support the long-term use of nemolizumab for the treatment of adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
He explained that interleukin (IL) 31 is a key neuroimmune cytokine in AD, triggering itch, skin barrier disruption, and exacerbation of inflammation via its receptor. Nemolizumab inhibits IL-31 receptor binding and was shown in the ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 trials to provide, along with background topical corticosteroids, clinically meaningful improvements in itch, skin lesions, and sleep for up to weeks 48 of follow-up in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD.
The current open-label long-term extension study involved patients who were enrolled in both ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, as well as those from four phase 2 and 2b studies, a phase 3b study, and adolescents who had not been included in a trial but who met the criteria for the extension study. All patients, whether they started on placebo plus background topical corticosteroids in a prior study, were treated with nemolizumab 30 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks along with topical corticosteroids.
The interim analysis included all efficacy and safety data up to the cutoff of September 30, 2022, on 723 patients who had completed 56 weeks of treatment among the 1751 patients initially enrolled in the extension study.
The results showed that, regardless of whether patients were nemolizumab naive at enrollment or had previously taken the drug, there were increases in the proportion of patients with an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0/1 and an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of at least 75 (EASI-75) over the 56 weeks of the study.
In those naive to nemolizumab, the increase in the proportion with an IGA score of 0/1 increased from 17.7% at baseline to 49.0% at 56 weeks, while the proportion with an EASI-75 increased from 24.0% to 78.7%.
The increase in the proportion of patients with an IGA score 0/1 among those who had previously received nemolizumab increased from 28.5% at baseline to 47.1% at 56 weeks. The proportion with an EASI-75 was 38.1% at baseline, rising to 73.0% at 56 weeks.
Increases in the proportion of patients with an EASI score of at least 50 and at least 90 were also seen with nemolizumab, as were increases in the proportion of patients with an improvement of at least four points on the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis Pruritus visual analogue scale and Sleep loss scores.
Similarly, the proportion of patients with a reduction in Dermatology Life Quality Index of at least four points increased over the study period.
Regarding safety, Thaçi said, there appeared to be fewer adverse events than had been previously reported with nemolizumab. “We don’t see any signs of conjunctivitis,” he continued, or significant risk of infection apart from for COVID-19, but he pointed out that the study was conducted during the pandemic, which was “a very difficult time.”
The most common treatment-related adverse events were, aside from COVID-19, nasopharyngitis in about 10%-11% of patients, upper respiratory tract infection in about 6% to almost 7%, and headache in about 5%.
Among the adverse events of special interest, newly diagnosed asthma or worsening of asthma occurred in 4.7%-4.8% of patients, while peripheral edema was seen in 0.8%-1.7%.
“Besides this, the study results are really looking very good,” he said, adding: “It means, in a long-term study, we can say today that nemolizumab has revealed the [same] safety profile that was shown in the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials.”
Alan D. Irvine, MD, DSc, professor of dermatology, Trinity College Dublin in Ireland, who was not involved in the study, underlined that the current interim assessment does not represent the complete dataset and is based on observed cases rather than a more rigorous methodology, such as net reclassification improvement analysis.
“So it makes it a little harder to interpret when you don’t know how many people are dropping out and why they’re dropping out,” he told this news organization. “That said, those who remain on drug out to 56 weeks do experience ongoing improvement in disease control.”
Consequently, “the most reliable message you can take from this interim analysis of long-term data is that there were no new safety signals,” and nemolizumab looks “safe and well-tolerated.”
Where nemolizumab would fit into the treatment pathway for moderate to severe AD remains an open question, Irvine said, although he believes that IL-13 pathway inhibitors such as dupilumab, tralokinumab, and lebrikizumab “will remain the treatment of choice for the immediate future due to prescriber familiarity and good efficacy data.”
However, for patients who are unsuitable for IL-13 inhibitors and/or Janus kinase inhibitors such as abrocitinib and upadacitinib, nemolizumab “could be an interesting alternative.”
“That’s probably where it is going to start,” Irvine said, “and then obviously that will change over time and as the data mature and prescribers become more familiar with the drug in the real world.”
Nemolizumab (Nemluvio) is approved for treating prurigo nodularis (PN) in the United States and in Japan and is under Food and Drug Administration review for treating AD. It is also under review for PN and AD in Europe, Canada, the United Kingdom, and several other countries, according to Galderma. It is also approved for treating pruritus associated with AD in pediatric, adolescent, and adult patients in Japan.
The study was funded by Galderma. Thaçi declared relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Target RWE, and UCB. Irvine declared relationships with AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAl, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Dermavant, Eli Lily, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, UCB, DS Biopharma, and Inflazome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(AD), revealed an interim analysis of the ARCADIA open-label extension study.
The research was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
The results showed nemolizumab was associated with “ongoing clinically meaningful improvements in itch, skin lesions, and sleep disturbance,” said study presenter Diamant Thaçi, MD, PhD, of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine, University of Lü̈beck in Germany.
Moreover, “patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life ... continued to improve over 56 weeks of treatment.” In addition, Thaçi added, the “safety data support the long-term use of nemolizumab for the treatment of adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
He explained that interleukin (IL) 31 is a key neuroimmune cytokine in AD, triggering itch, skin barrier disruption, and exacerbation of inflammation via its receptor. Nemolizumab inhibits IL-31 receptor binding and was shown in the ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 trials to provide, along with background topical corticosteroids, clinically meaningful improvements in itch, skin lesions, and sleep for up to weeks 48 of follow-up in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD.
The current open-label long-term extension study involved patients who were enrolled in both ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, as well as those from four phase 2 and 2b studies, a phase 3b study, and adolescents who had not been included in a trial but who met the criteria for the extension study. All patients, whether they started on placebo plus background topical corticosteroids in a prior study, were treated with nemolizumab 30 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks along with topical corticosteroids.
The interim analysis included all efficacy and safety data up to the cutoff of September 30, 2022, on 723 patients who had completed 56 weeks of treatment among the 1751 patients initially enrolled in the extension study.
The results showed that, regardless of whether patients were nemolizumab naive at enrollment or had previously taken the drug, there were increases in the proportion of patients with an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0/1 and an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of at least 75 (EASI-75) over the 56 weeks of the study.
In those naive to nemolizumab, the increase in the proportion with an IGA score of 0/1 increased from 17.7% at baseline to 49.0% at 56 weeks, while the proportion with an EASI-75 increased from 24.0% to 78.7%.
The increase in the proportion of patients with an IGA score 0/1 among those who had previously received nemolizumab increased from 28.5% at baseline to 47.1% at 56 weeks. The proportion with an EASI-75 was 38.1% at baseline, rising to 73.0% at 56 weeks.
Increases in the proportion of patients with an EASI score of at least 50 and at least 90 were also seen with nemolizumab, as were increases in the proportion of patients with an improvement of at least four points on the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis Pruritus visual analogue scale and Sleep loss scores.
Similarly, the proportion of patients with a reduction in Dermatology Life Quality Index of at least four points increased over the study period.
Regarding safety, Thaçi said, there appeared to be fewer adverse events than had been previously reported with nemolizumab. “We don’t see any signs of conjunctivitis,” he continued, or significant risk of infection apart from for COVID-19, but he pointed out that the study was conducted during the pandemic, which was “a very difficult time.”
The most common treatment-related adverse events were, aside from COVID-19, nasopharyngitis in about 10%-11% of patients, upper respiratory tract infection in about 6% to almost 7%, and headache in about 5%.
Among the adverse events of special interest, newly diagnosed asthma or worsening of asthma occurred in 4.7%-4.8% of patients, while peripheral edema was seen in 0.8%-1.7%.
“Besides this, the study results are really looking very good,” he said, adding: “It means, in a long-term study, we can say today that nemolizumab has revealed the [same] safety profile that was shown in the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials.”
Alan D. Irvine, MD, DSc, professor of dermatology, Trinity College Dublin in Ireland, who was not involved in the study, underlined that the current interim assessment does not represent the complete dataset and is based on observed cases rather than a more rigorous methodology, such as net reclassification improvement analysis.
“So it makes it a little harder to interpret when you don’t know how many people are dropping out and why they’re dropping out,” he told this news organization. “That said, those who remain on drug out to 56 weeks do experience ongoing improvement in disease control.”
Consequently, “the most reliable message you can take from this interim analysis of long-term data is that there were no new safety signals,” and nemolizumab looks “safe and well-tolerated.”
Where nemolizumab would fit into the treatment pathway for moderate to severe AD remains an open question, Irvine said, although he believes that IL-13 pathway inhibitors such as dupilumab, tralokinumab, and lebrikizumab “will remain the treatment of choice for the immediate future due to prescriber familiarity and good efficacy data.”
However, for patients who are unsuitable for IL-13 inhibitors and/or Janus kinase inhibitors such as abrocitinib and upadacitinib, nemolizumab “could be an interesting alternative.”
“That’s probably where it is going to start,” Irvine said, “and then obviously that will change over time and as the data mature and prescribers become more familiar with the drug in the real world.”
Nemolizumab (Nemluvio) is approved for treating prurigo nodularis (PN) in the United States and in Japan and is under Food and Drug Administration review for treating AD. It is also under review for PN and AD in Europe, Canada, the United Kingdom, and several other countries, according to Galderma. It is also approved for treating pruritus associated with AD in pediatric, adolescent, and adult patients in Japan.
The study was funded by Galderma. Thaçi declared relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Target RWE, and UCB. Irvine declared relationships with AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAl, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Dermavant, Eli Lily, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, UCB, DS Biopharma, and Inflazome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(AD), revealed an interim analysis of the ARCADIA open-label extension study.
The research was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
The results showed nemolizumab was associated with “ongoing clinically meaningful improvements in itch, skin lesions, and sleep disturbance,” said study presenter Diamant Thaçi, MD, PhD, of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine, University of Lü̈beck in Germany.
Moreover, “patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life ... continued to improve over 56 weeks of treatment.” In addition, Thaçi added, the “safety data support the long-term use of nemolizumab for the treatment of adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
He explained that interleukin (IL) 31 is a key neuroimmune cytokine in AD, triggering itch, skin barrier disruption, and exacerbation of inflammation via its receptor. Nemolizumab inhibits IL-31 receptor binding and was shown in the ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 trials to provide, along with background topical corticosteroids, clinically meaningful improvements in itch, skin lesions, and sleep for up to weeks 48 of follow-up in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD.
The current open-label long-term extension study involved patients who were enrolled in both ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, as well as those from four phase 2 and 2b studies, a phase 3b study, and adolescents who had not been included in a trial but who met the criteria for the extension study. All patients, whether they started on placebo plus background topical corticosteroids in a prior study, were treated with nemolizumab 30 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks along with topical corticosteroids.
The interim analysis included all efficacy and safety data up to the cutoff of September 30, 2022, on 723 patients who had completed 56 weeks of treatment among the 1751 patients initially enrolled in the extension study.
The results showed that, regardless of whether patients were nemolizumab naive at enrollment or had previously taken the drug, there were increases in the proportion of patients with an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0/1 and an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of at least 75 (EASI-75) over the 56 weeks of the study.
In those naive to nemolizumab, the increase in the proportion with an IGA score of 0/1 increased from 17.7% at baseline to 49.0% at 56 weeks, while the proportion with an EASI-75 increased from 24.0% to 78.7%.
The increase in the proportion of patients with an IGA score 0/1 among those who had previously received nemolizumab increased from 28.5% at baseline to 47.1% at 56 weeks. The proportion with an EASI-75 was 38.1% at baseline, rising to 73.0% at 56 weeks.
Increases in the proportion of patients with an EASI score of at least 50 and at least 90 were also seen with nemolizumab, as were increases in the proportion of patients with an improvement of at least four points on the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis Pruritus visual analogue scale and Sleep loss scores.
Similarly, the proportion of patients with a reduction in Dermatology Life Quality Index of at least four points increased over the study period.
Regarding safety, Thaçi said, there appeared to be fewer adverse events than had been previously reported with nemolizumab. “We don’t see any signs of conjunctivitis,” he continued, or significant risk of infection apart from for COVID-19, but he pointed out that the study was conducted during the pandemic, which was “a very difficult time.”
The most common treatment-related adverse events were, aside from COVID-19, nasopharyngitis in about 10%-11% of patients, upper respiratory tract infection in about 6% to almost 7%, and headache in about 5%.
Among the adverse events of special interest, newly diagnosed asthma or worsening of asthma occurred in 4.7%-4.8% of patients, while peripheral edema was seen in 0.8%-1.7%.
“Besides this, the study results are really looking very good,” he said, adding: “It means, in a long-term study, we can say today that nemolizumab has revealed the [same] safety profile that was shown in the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials.”
Alan D. Irvine, MD, DSc, professor of dermatology, Trinity College Dublin in Ireland, who was not involved in the study, underlined that the current interim assessment does not represent the complete dataset and is based on observed cases rather than a more rigorous methodology, such as net reclassification improvement analysis.
“So it makes it a little harder to interpret when you don’t know how many people are dropping out and why they’re dropping out,” he told this news organization. “That said, those who remain on drug out to 56 weeks do experience ongoing improvement in disease control.”
Consequently, “the most reliable message you can take from this interim analysis of long-term data is that there were no new safety signals,” and nemolizumab looks “safe and well-tolerated.”
Where nemolizumab would fit into the treatment pathway for moderate to severe AD remains an open question, Irvine said, although he believes that IL-13 pathway inhibitors such as dupilumab, tralokinumab, and lebrikizumab “will remain the treatment of choice for the immediate future due to prescriber familiarity and good efficacy data.”
However, for patients who are unsuitable for IL-13 inhibitors and/or Janus kinase inhibitors such as abrocitinib and upadacitinib, nemolizumab “could be an interesting alternative.”
“That’s probably where it is going to start,” Irvine said, “and then obviously that will change over time and as the data mature and prescribers become more familiar with the drug in the real world.”
Nemolizumab (Nemluvio) is approved for treating prurigo nodularis (PN) in the United States and in Japan and is under Food and Drug Administration review for treating AD. It is also under review for PN and AD in Europe, Canada, the United Kingdom, and several other countries, according to Galderma. It is also approved for treating pruritus associated with AD in pediatric, adolescent, and adult patients in Japan.
The study was funded by Galderma. Thaçi declared relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Target RWE, and UCB. Irvine declared relationships with AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAl, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Dermavant, Eli Lily, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, UCB, DS Biopharma, and Inflazome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EADV 2024
Triple P
Podcasts, websites, and large “Parenting” sections in bookstores testify to the large demand for parent guidance and support, but also to the fact that there is no one universally accepted guidebook, such as Benjamin Spock provided for parents almost 80 years ago with Baby and Child Care.
We will describe the basic components of this curriculum so that you may determine whether it might be useful to the families in your practice. Then we will expand upon the domains that have proven essential for parents to nurture healthy development in their children. Even if you do not have the time or resources to provide the full Triple P curriculum, you can offer these principles directly to parents and decide when to refer them to access more formal parent training and coaching.
Triple P was developed by psychologist Matthew Sanders, to “promote positive, caring relationships between parents and their children and to help parents develop effective management strategies for dealing with a variety of childhood behavior problems and common developmental issues” as his doctoral project in Australia in the 1980s. Research in the 1990s suggested substantial efficacy, and it was packaged for broader adoption in the early 2000s. It is a tiered approach, meaning there is content for universal education (level 1), up through more intensive, specialized, and individualized content to be delivered in group or individual settings focused on building specific skills or addressing select problems. It was originally developed for the parents of 0- to 11-year-old children, with additional curricula for parents of teenagers created later. It always is delivered to parents only, through a mix of video and reading, or in-person groups or individual coaching. While the universal education resources are available for free to families of children under 12 in Australia, resources and training are available for a fee in the United states (triplep.net). Research has demonstrated considerable efficacy at reducing some of the common behavioral problems of childhood, improving parental confidence and family harmony, and decreasing rates of parental depression. It has even demonstrated efficacy in reducing the incidence of child maltreatment.
Triple P focuses on what Sanders calls the five key principles of positive parenting:
- 1. Creating a safe and engaging environment for children
- 2. Providing a positive learning environment for children
- 3. Assertive discipline
- 4. Having realistic expectations
- 5. Parental self-care.
The educational materials and more intensive parent trainings are all focused on developing knowledge and skills in the parents that will promote a positive relationship with their children, teach the children new skills while encouraging desirable behaviors, and managing problematic behaviors. The training happens with written or video scenarios, up through individualized skill coaching with homework and direct feedback from trained clinicians. While information about the universally helpful knowledge and skills can be found online or accessed through some local programs in the United States, the higher levels of intervention are less consistently available. You should explore what is available in your community, but even if you don’t have the resources for your own training, you are already offering parent guidance at every visit.
Practical Strategies
Below are practical strategies to offer parents the knowledge and support that are essential to “positive parenting,” so they may nurture their children’s healthiest development.
Attunement: Attunement is simply a parent’s ability to know who their child is and where their child is at any given time. This covers an appreciation of the child’s temperament, style, interests, strengths, and vulnerabilities. Where their child is at includes being able to read that particular child’s cues: Are they hungry? Sleepy? Sick? Frustrated? Parents are the experts on their children, but their children are also always changing. You can help the parents in your practice be intentional about being attuned to their children, so they can always be deepening their understanding of who their children are (becoming) and where they are at in any given moment. This requires protecting regular, unstructured time when they can give their children their full attention: reading, doing an art project, practicing music, or basketball. Schedules are often packed with work and school, driving between many structured activities. Reassure the parents in your practice that time spent in play is just as important. When a parent is present, attentive, and curious, asking questions, learning about the child’s thoughts, feelings and ideas, they are doing some of the most essential (and delightful) work of raising children.
Positive Environment: A “positive environment” is child-centered, with access to age-appropriate activities of a wide range. Offering first-time parents written resources about child development and age-appropriate games, books, and activities is an easy way to support positive parenting. A positive environment also has structure and routines, so children can play and explore with the comfort of knowing what to expect and what is expected of them. Do they have a regular bedtime and bedtime routines? Do they consistently eat dinner together and clean up as a family? Do they have reliable unstructured time together, maybe playing board games or kickball after dinner? These varying but predictable routines provide opportunities for children to practice helping, following through, sharing, and tolerating frustration or failure, and they give parents low-stakes opportunities to offer praise for their effort, compassion when they struggle, and affection for no reason at all. They lower the chances of parent-child interactions being predominantly reactive, demanding, pleading, or angry.
Effective Discipline: A positive environment includes reasonable and consistent consequences for rule breaking and poor behavior, and an essential part of predictability includes clear ground rules for what is expected of children at home, around chores, getting ready for school and bedtime, and their behavior. Parents need to agree on and children should understand what the consequences will be for breaking rules. Parents should also have a clear strategy for consistently and calmly enforcing rules. This is not easy, but is just as important as affection and play. If parents are struggling with discipline, it is worth asking for a specific example to learn about where the trouble lies. Are parents not on the same page? Are they worried about their children’s distress? Do they lose their temper and the matter escalates? Clear ground rules and a game plan can help them to stay calm instead of resorting to pleading and yelling. Speaking with them about the value of planning and communicating about these expectations and rules during a quiet time, not in the midst of conflict, might be enough to help them with effective discipline. Others may need more support. Books like 123 Magic with more detail on how to manage time outs can be helpful. For those parents who are managing greater difficulty, a referral to parent coaching (with a modality such as Triple P, Parent-Child Interaction Training or Collaborative Problem Solving) may be needed.
Parental Well-Being: Being aligned with one’s spouse (or other caregiver) in how to manage challenging child behaviors is essential to a healthy relationship, and overall well-being is an essential ingredient in creating a nurturing, positive environment at home. How is the parents’ communication with each other overall? Do they have time together that is not focused on the children? Does each parent have time for outside interests or hobbies? How about other important relationships? Do they prioritize their own sleep, regular exercise, and good nutrition? It can be powerful if they plan family activities that are centered on their own passions and interests as well as their children’s. It is powerful for parents to hear from you that when they protect some of their time and energy to simply care for their own health and well-being, they are building a positive environment for their children, both in how they will show up for their family and in what they model.
Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
Suggested Reading
Sanders MR et al. The Development and Dissemination of the Triple P – Positive Parenting Program: A Multilevel Evidence-Based System of Parenting and Family Support. Prev Sci. 2002 Sep;3(3):173-89. doi: 10.1023/a:1019942516231.
Sanders MR. The Triple P System of Evidence-Based Parenting Support: Past, Present, and Future Directions. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2023 Dec;26(4):880-903. doi: 10.1007/s10567-023-00441-8.
Podcasts, websites, and large “Parenting” sections in bookstores testify to the large demand for parent guidance and support, but also to the fact that there is no one universally accepted guidebook, such as Benjamin Spock provided for parents almost 80 years ago with Baby and Child Care.
We will describe the basic components of this curriculum so that you may determine whether it might be useful to the families in your practice. Then we will expand upon the domains that have proven essential for parents to nurture healthy development in their children. Even if you do not have the time or resources to provide the full Triple P curriculum, you can offer these principles directly to parents and decide when to refer them to access more formal parent training and coaching.
Triple P was developed by psychologist Matthew Sanders, to “promote positive, caring relationships between parents and their children and to help parents develop effective management strategies for dealing with a variety of childhood behavior problems and common developmental issues” as his doctoral project in Australia in the 1980s. Research in the 1990s suggested substantial efficacy, and it was packaged for broader adoption in the early 2000s. It is a tiered approach, meaning there is content for universal education (level 1), up through more intensive, specialized, and individualized content to be delivered in group or individual settings focused on building specific skills or addressing select problems. It was originally developed for the parents of 0- to 11-year-old children, with additional curricula for parents of teenagers created later. It always is delivered to parents only, through a mix of video and reading, or in-person groups or individual coaching. While the universal education resources are available for free to families of children under 12 in Australia, resources and training are available for a fee in the United states (triplep.net). Research has demonstrated considerable efficacy at reducing some of the common behavioral problems of childhood, improving parental confidence and family harmony, and decreasing rates of parental depression. It has even demonstrated efficacy in reducing the incidence of child maltreatment.
Triple P focuses on what Sanders calls the five key principles of positive parenting:
- 1. Creating a safe and engaging environment for children
- 2. Providing a positive learning environment for children
- 3. Assertive discipline
- 4. Having realistic expectations
- 5. Parental self-care.
The educational materials and more intensive parent trainings are all focused on developing knowledge and skills in the parents that will promote a positive relationship with their children, teach the children new skills while encouraging desirable behaviors, and managing problematic behaviors. The training happens with written or video scenarios, up through individualized skill coaching with homework and direct feedback from trained clinicians. While information about the universally helpful knowledge and skills can be found online or accessed through some local programs in the United States, the higher levels of intervention are less consistently available. You should explore what is available in your community, but even if you don’t have the resources for your own training, you are already offering parent guidance at every visit.
Practical Strategies
Below are practical strategies to offer parents the knowledge and support that are essential to “positive parenting,” so they may nurture their children’s healthiest development.
Attunement: Attunement is simply a parent’s ability to know who their child is and where their child is at any given time. This covers an appreciation of the child’s temperament, style, interests, strengths, and vulnerabilities. Where their child is at includes being able to read that particular child’s cues: Are they hungry? Sleepy? Sick? Frustrated? Parents are the experts on their children, but their children are also always changing. You can help the parents in your practice be intentional about being attuned to their children, so they can always be deepening their understanding of who their children are (becoming) and where they are at in any given moment. This requires protecting regular, unstructured time when they can give their children their full attention: reading, doing an art project, practicing music, or basketball. Schedules are often packed with work and school, driving between many structured activities. Reassure the parents in your practice that time spent in play is just as important. When a parent is present, attentive, and curious, asking questions, learning about the child’s thoughts, feelings and ideas, they are doing some of the most essential (and delightful) work of raising children.
Positive Environment: A “positive environment” is child-centered, with access to age-appropriate activities of a wide range. Offering first-time parents written resources about child development and age-appropriate games, books, and activities is an easy way to support positive parenting. A positive environment also has structure and routines, so children can play and explore with the comfort of knowing what to expect and what is expected of them. Do they have a regular bedtime and bedtime routines? Do they consistently eat dinner together and clean up as a family? Do they have reliable unstructured time together, maybe playing board games or kickball after dinner? These varying but predictable routines provide opportunities for children to practice helping, following through, sharing, and tolerating frustration or failure, and they give parents low-stakes opportunities to offer praise for their effort, compassion when they struggle, and affection for no reason at all. They lower the chances of parent-child interactions being predominantly reactive, demanding, pleading, or angry.
Effective Discipline: A positive environment includes reasonable and consistent consequences for rule breaking and poor behavior, and an essential part of predictability includes clear ground rules for what is expected of children at home, around chores, getting ready for school and bedtime, and their behavior. Parents need to agree on and children should understand what the consequences will be for breaking rules. Parents should also have a clear strategy for consistently and calmly enforcing rules. This is not easy, but is just as important as affection and play. If parents are struggling with discipline, it is worth asking for a specific example to learn about where the trouble lies. Are parents not on the same page? Are they worried about their children’s distress? Do they lose their temper and the matter escalates? Clear ground rules and a game plan can help them to stay calm instead of resorting to pleading and yelling. Speaking with them about the value of planning and communicating about these expectations and rules during a quiet time, not in the midst of conflict, might be enough to help them with effective discipline. Others may need more support. Books like 123 Magic with more detail on how to manage time outs can be helpful. For those parents who are managing greater difficulty, a referral to parent coaching (with a modality such as Triple P, Parent-Child Interaction Training or Collaborative Problem Solving) may be needed.
Parental Well-Being: Being aligned with one’s spouse (or other caregiver) in how to manage challenging child behaviors is essential to a healthy relationship, and overall well-being is an essential ingredient in creating a nurturing, positive environment at home. How is the parents’ communication with each other overall? Do they have time together that is not focused on the children? Does each parent have time for outside interests or hobbies? How about other important relationships? Do they prioritize their own sleep, regular exercise, and good nutrition? It can be powerful if they plan family activities that are centered on their own passions and interests as well as their children’s. It is powerful for parents to hear from you that when they protect some of their time and energy to simply care for their own health and well-being, they are building a positive environment for their children, both in how they will show up for their family and in what they model.
Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
Suggested Reading
Sanders MR et al. The Development and Dissemination of the Triple P – Positive Parenting Program: A Multilevel Evidence-Based System of Parenting and Family Support. Prev Sci. 2002 Sep;3(3):173-89. doi: 10.1023/a:1019942516231.
Sanders MR. The Triple P System of Evidence-Based Parenting Support: Past, Present, and Future Directions. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2023 Dec;26(4):880-903. doi: 10.1007/s10567-023-00441-8.
Podcasts, websites, and large “Parenting” sections in bookstores testify to the large demand for parent guidance and support, but also to the fact that there is no one universally accepted guidebook, such as Benjamin Spock provided for parents almost 80 years ago with Baby and Child Care.
We will describe the basic components of this curriculum so that you may determine whether it might be useful to the families in your practice. Then we will expand upon the domains that have proven essential for parents to nurture healthy development in their children. Even if you do not have the time or resources to provide the full Triple P curriculum, you can offer these principles directly to parents and decide when to refer them to access more formal parent training and coaching.
Triple P was developed by psychologist Matthew Sanders, to “promote positive, caring relationships between parents and their children and to help parents develop effective management strategies for dealing with a variety of childhood behavior problems and common developmental issues” as his doctoral project in Australia in the 1980s. Research in the 1990s suggested substantial efficacy, and it was packaged for broader adoption in the early 2000s. It is a tiered approach, meaning there is content for universal education (level 1), up through more intensive, specialized, and individualized content to be delivered in group or individual settings focused on building specific skills or addressing select problems. It was originally developed for the parents of 0- to 11-year-old children, with additional curricula for parents of teenagers created later. It always is delivered to parents only, through a mix of video and reading, or in-person groups or individual coaching. While the universal education resources are available for free to families of children under 12 in Australia, resources and training are available for a fee in the United states (triplep.net). Research has demonstrated considerable efficacy at reducing some of the common behavioral problems of childhood, improving parental confidence and family harmony, and decreasing rates of parental depression. It has even demonstrated efficacy in reducing the incidence of child maltreatment.
Triple P focuses on what Sanders calls the five key principles of positive parenting:
- 1. Creating a safe and engaging environment for children
- 2. Providing a positive learning environment for children
- 3. Assertive discipline
- 4. Having realistic expectations
- 5. Parental self-care.
The educational materials and more intensive parent trainings are all focused on developing knowledge and skills in the parents that will promote a positive relationship with their children, teach the children new skills while encouraging desirable behaviors, and managing problematic behaviors. The training happens with written or video scenarios, up through individualized skill coaching with homework and direct feedback from trained clinicians. While information about the universally helpful knowledge and skills can be found online or accessed through some local programs in the United States, the higher levels of intervention are less consistently available. You should explore what is available in your community, but even if you don’t have the resources for your own training, you are already offering parent guidance at every visit.
Practical Strategies
Below are practical strategies to offer parents the knowledge and support that are essential to “positive parenting,” so they may nurture their children’s healthiest development.
Attunement: Attunement is simply a parent’s ability to know who their child is and where their child is at any given time. This covers an appreciation of the child’s temperament, style, interests, strengths, and vulnerabilities. Where their child is at includes being able to read that particular child’s cues: Are they hungry? Sleepy? Sick? Frustrated? Parents are the experts on their children, but their children are also always changing. You can help the parents in your practice be intentional about being attuned to their children, so they can always be deepening their understanding of who their children are (becoming) and where they are at in any given moment. This requires protecting regular, unstructured time when they can give their children their full attention: reading, doing an art project, practicing music, or basketball. Schedules are often packed with work and school, driving between many structured activities. Reassure the parents in your practice that time spent in play is just as important. When a parent is present, attentive, and curious, asking questions, learning about the child’s thoughts, feelings and ideas, they are doing some of the most essential (and delightful) work of raising children.
Positive Environment: A “positive environment” is child-centered, with access to age-appropriate activities of a wide range. Offering first-time parents written resources about child development and age-appropriate games, books, and activities is an easy way to support positive parenting. A positive environment also has structure and routines, so children can play and explore with the comfort of knowing what to expect and what is expected of them. Do they have a regular bedtime and bedtime routines? Do they consistently eat dinner together and clean up as a family? Do they have reliable unstructured time together, maybe playing board games or kickball after dinner? These varying but predictable routines provide opportunities for children to practice helping, following through, sharing, and tolerating frustration or failure, and they give parents low-stakes opportunities to offer praise for their effort, compassion when they struggle, and affection for no reason at all. They lower the chances of parent-child interactions being predominantly reactive, demanding, pleading, or angry.
Effective Discipline: A positive environment includes reasonable and consistent consequences for rule breaking and poor behavior, and an essential part of predictability includes clear ground rules for what is expected of children at home, around chores, getting ready for school and bedtime, and their behavior. Parents need to agree on and children should understand what the consequences will be for breaking rules. Parents should also have a clear strategy for consistently and calmly enforcing rules. This is not easy, but is just as important as affection and play. If parents are struggling with discipline, it is worth asking for a specific example to learn about where the trouble lies. Are parents not on the same page? Are they worried about their children’s distress? Do they lose their temper and the matter escalates? Clear ground rules and a game plan can help them to stay calm instead of resorting to pleading and yelling. Speaking with them about the value of planning and communicating about these expectations and rules during a quiet time, not in the midst of conflict, might be enough to help them with effective discipline. Others may need more support. Books like 123 Magic with more detail on how to manage time outs can be helpful. For those parents who are managing greater difficulty, a referral to parent coaching (with a modality such as Triple P, Parent-Child Interaction Training or Collaborative Problem Solving) may be needed.
Parental Well-Being: Being aligned with one’s spouse (or other caregiver) in how to manage challenging child behaviors is essential to a healthy relationship, and overall well-being is an essential ingredient in creating a nurturing, positive environment at home. How is the parents’ communication with each other overall? Do they have time together that is not focused on the children? Does each parent have time for outside interests or hobbies? How about other important relationships? Do they prioritize their own sleep, regular exercise, and good nutrition? It can be powerful if they plan family activities that are centered on their own passions and interests as well as their children’s. It is powerful for parents to hear from you that when they protect some of their time and energy to simply care for their own health and well-being, they are building a positive environment for their children, both in how they will show up for their family and in what they model.
Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
Suggested Reading
Sanders MR et al. The Development and Dissemination of the Triple P – Positive Parenting Program: A Multilevel Evidence-Based System of Parenting and Family Support. Prev Sci. 2002 Sep;3(3):173-89. doi: 10.1023/a:1019942516231.
Sanders MR. The Triple P System of Evidence-Based Parenting Support: Past, Present, and Future Directions. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2023 Dec;26(4):880-903. doi: 10.1007/s10567-023-00441-8.
Rosacea: Ivermectin’s Benefits May Include Impact on Skin Microbiome
TOPLINE:
in a small study.
METHODOLOGY:
- In this single-center, open label study, 10 adults (mean age, 66.4 years) with papulopustular rosacea were treated with 1% ivermectin cream daily for 12 weeks.
- Skin swabs from lesional and nonlesional sites were collected at baseline and after 3 months of treatment to assess changes in the bacterial microbiome and the density of Demodex mites.
- The average baseline total papule count was 26.9, and the Clinician’s Erythema Assessment (CEA) score was 2 (average value on a scale of 0-4 from five locations on the face).
- For comparison, baseline swabs were taken from 10 healthy age-matched individuals.
TAKEAWAY:
- The density of Demodex mites was significantly reduced on lesional skin (P = .002) with topical ivermectin, which has anthelmintic effects against Demodex and is an effective treatment for rosacea.
- The absolute abundance of S epidermidis increased after ivermectin treatment on lesional skin (P = .039), while no changes were seen in Cutibacterium acnes.
- No changes were noted on nonlesional skin in the patients with rosacea.
- Topical ivermectin also reduced the number of papules and CEA scores (both P = .002) in individuals with rosacea.
IN PRACTICE:
“Treatment with topical ivermectin may improve the symptoms of rosacea through modulation of the skin microbiome beyond decreasing Demodex,” the authors concluded. “The results of this study,” they added, “provide valuable insights into the intricacies of the cutaneous microbiome in the pathophysiology of rosacea and highlight the potential therapeutic interventions targeting the skin microbiome.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Teruaki Nakatsuji, PhD, of the department of dermatology, University of California, San Diego. It was published online on October 29 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The small sample size of 10 patients with rosacea limits the generalizability of the findings, and the study’s open-label design may introduce bias in the clinical assessments. Further research with larger sample sizes and randomized controlled trials is needed to confirm these findings.
DISCLOSURES:
This work was funded by a grant from the National Rosacea Society. One author disclosed being the cofounder and consultant, with equity interest in MatriSys Bioscience. The other authors reported no competing interests.
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 first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
in a small study.
METHODOLOGY:
- In this single-center, open label study, 10 adults (mean age, 66.4 years) with papulopustular rosacea were treated with 1% ivermectin cream daily for 12 weeks.
- Skin swabs from lesional and nonlesional sites were collected at baseline and after 3 months of treatment to assess changes in the bacterial microbiome and the density of Demodex mites.
- The average baseline total papule count was 26.9, and the Clinician’s Erythema Assessment (CEA) score was 2 (average value on a scale of 0-4 from five locations on the face).
- For comparison, baseline swabs were taken from 10 healthy age-matched individuals.
TAKEAWAY:
- The density of Demodex mites was significantly reduced on lesional skin (P = .002) with topical ivermectin, which has anthelmintic effects against Demodex and is an effective treatment for rosacea.
- The absolute abundance of S epidermidis increased after ivermectin treatment on lesional skin (P = .039), while no changes were seen in Cutibacterium acnes.
- No changes were noted on nonlesional skin in the patients with rosacea.
- Topical ivermectin also reduced the number of papules and CEA scores (both P = .002) in individuals with rosacea.
IN PRACTICE:
“Treatment with topical ivermectin may improve the symptoms of rosacea through modulation of the skin microbiome beyond decreasing Demodex,” the authors concluded. “The results of this study,” they added, “provide valuable insights into the intricacies of the cutaneous microbiome in the pathophysiology of rosacea and highlight the potential therapeutic interventions targeting the skin microbiome.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Teruaki Nakatsuji, PhD, of the department of dermatology, University of California, San Diego. It was published online on October 29 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The small sample size of 10 patients with rosacea limits the generalizability of the findings, and the study’s open-label design may introduce bias in the clinical assessments. Further research with larger sample sizes and randomized controlled trials is needed to confirm these findings.
DISCLOSURES:
This work was funded by a grant from the National Rosacea Society. One author disclosed being the cofounder and consultant, with equity interest in MatriSys Bioscience. The other authors reported no competing interests.
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 first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
in a small study.
METHODOLOGY:
- In this single-center, open label study, 10 adults (mean age, 66.4 years) with papulopustular rosacea were treated with 1% ivermectin cream daily for 12 weeks.
- Skin swabs from lesional and nonlesional sites were collected at baseline and after 3 months of treatment to assess changes in the bacterial microbiome and the density of Demodex mites.
- The average baseline total papule count was 26.9, and the Clinician’s Erythema Assessment (CEA) score was 2 (average value on a scale of 0-4 from five locations on the face).
- For comparison, baseline swabs were taken from 10 healthy age-matched individuals.
TAKEAWAY:
- The density of Demodex mites was significantly reduced on lesional skin (P = .002) with topical ivermectin, which has anthelmintic effects against Demodex and is an effective treatment for rosacea.
- The absolute abundance of S epidermidis increased after ivermectin treatment on lesional skin (P = .039), while no changes were seen in Cutibacterium acnes.
- No changes were noted on nonlesional skin in the patients with rosacea.
- Topical ivermectin also reduced the number of papules and CEA scores (both P = .002) in individuals with rosacea.
IN PRACTICE:
“Treatment with topical ivermectin may improve the symptoms of rosacea through modulation of the skin microbiome beyond decreasing Demodex,” the authors concluded. “The results of this study,” they added, “provide valuable insights into the intricacies of the cutaneous microbiome in the pathophysiology of rosacea and highlight the potential therapeutic interventions targeting the skin microbiome.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Teruaki Nakatsuji, PhD, of the department of dermatology, University of California, San Diego. It was published online on October 29 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The small sample size of 10 patients with rosacea limits the generalizability of the findings, and the study’s open-label design may introduce bias in the clinical assessments. Further research with larger sample sizes and randomized controlled trials is needed to confirm these findings.
DISCLOSURES:
This work was funded by a grant from the National Rosacea Society. One author disclosed being the cofounder and consultant, with equity interest in MatriSys Bioscience. The other authors reported no competing interests.
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 first appeared on Medscape.com.