MDedge Pediatrics

BY ALICIA AULT

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is alerting clinicians to be on the lookout for a severe antifungal-resistant form of tinea, as it was recently detected in two patients in New York.

Tinea, or ringworm, one of the most common fungal infections, is responsible for almost 5 million outpatient visits and 690 hospitalizations annually, according to the CDC.

Over the past 10 years, severe, antifungal-resistant tinea has spread in South Asia, in part because of the rise of a new dermatophyte species known as Trichophyton indotineae, wrote the authors of a report on the two patients with the drug-resistant strain. This epidemic “has likely been driven by misuse and overuse of topical antifungals and corticosteroids,” added the authors, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The cases were detected by a New York City dermatologist. In the first case, a 28-year-old woman developed a widespread pruritic eruption in the summer of 2021. She did not consult a dermatologist until December, when she was in the third trimester of pregnancy. She had large, annular, scaly, pruritic plaques on her neck, abdomen, pubic region, and buttocks, but had no underlying medical conditions, no known exposures to someone with a similar rash, and no recent international travel history.

After she gave birth in January, she started oral terbinafine therapy but had no improvement after 2 weeks. Clinicians administered a 4-week course of itraconazole, which resolved the infection.

The second patient, a 47-year-old woman with no medical conditions, developed a rash while in Bangladesh in the summer of 2022. Other family members had a similar rash. She was treated with topical antifungal and steroid combination creams but had no resolution. Back in the United States, she was prescribed hydrocortisone 2.5% ointment and diphenhydramine, clotrimazole cream, and terbinafine cream in three successive emergency department visits. In December 2022, dermatologists, observing widespread, discrete, scaly, annular, pruritic plaques on the thighs and buttocks, prescribed a 4-week course of oral terbinafine. When the rash did not resolve, she was given 4 weeks of griseofulvin. The rash persisted, although there was 80% improvement. Clinicians are now considering itraconazole. The woman’s son and husband are also being evaluated, as they have similar rashes.

In both cases, skin culture isolates were initially identified as Trichophyton mentagrophytes. Further analysis at the New York State Department of Health’s lab, using Sanger sequencing of the internal transcribed spacer region of the ribosomal gene, followed by phylogenetic analysis, identified the isolates as T. indotineae.

The authors note that culture-based techniques used by most clinical laboratories typically misidentify T. indotineae as T. mentagrophytes or T. interdigitale. Genomic sequencing must be used to properly identify T. indotineae, they wrote.

Clinicians should consider T. indotineae in patients with widespread ringworm, especially if they do not improve with topical antifungals or oral terbinafine, said the authors. If T. indotineae is suspected, state or local public health departments can direct clinicians to testing.

The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

BY ALICIA AULT

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is alerting clinicians to be on the lookout for a severe antifungal-resistant form of tinea, as it was recently detected in two patients in New York.

Tinea, or ringworm, one of the most common fungal infections, is responsible for almost 5 million outpatient visits and 690 hospitalizations annually, according to the CDC.

Over the past 10 years, severe, antifungal-resistant tinea has spread in South Asia, in part because of the rise of a new dermatophyte species known as Trichophyton indotineae, wrote the authors of a report on the two patients with the drug-resistant strain. This epidemic “has likely been driven by misuse and overuse of topical antifungals and corticosteroids,” added the authors, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The cases were detected by a New York City dermatologist. In the first case, a 28-year-old woman developed a widespread pruritic eruption in the summer of 2021. She did not consult a dermatologist until December, when she was in the third trimester of pregnancy. She had large, annular, scaly, pruritic plaques on her neck, abdomen, pubic region, and buttocks, but had no underlying medical conditions, no known exposures to someone with a similar rash, and no recent international travel history.

After she gave birth in January, she started oral terbinafine therapy but had no improvement after 2 weeks. Clinicians administered a 4-week course of itraconazole, which resolved the infection.

The second patient, a 47-year-old woman with no medical conditions, developed a rash while in Bangladesh in the summer of 2022. Other family members had a similar rash. She was treated with topical antifungal and steroid combination creams but had no resolution. Back in the United States, she was prescribed hydrocortisone 2.5% ointment and diphenhydramine, clotrimazole cream, and terbinafine cream in three successive emergency department visits. In December 2022, dermatologists, observing widespread, discrete, scaly, annular, pruritic plaques on the thighs and buttocks, prescribed a 4-week course of oral terbinafine. When the rash did not resolve, she was given 4 weeks of griseofulvin. The rash persisted, although there was 80% improvement. Clinicians are now considering itraconazole. The woman’s son and husband are also being evaluated, as they have similar rashes.

In both cases, skin culture isolates were initially identified as Trichophyton mentagrophytes. Further analysis at the New York State Department of Health’s lab, using Sanger sequencing of the internal transcribed spacer region of the ribosomal gene, followed by phylogenetic analysis, identified the isolates as T. indotineae.

The authors note that culture-based techniques used by most clinical laboratories typically misidentify T. indotineae as T. mentagrophytes or T. interdigitale. Genomic sequencing must be used to properly identify T. indotineae, they wrote.

Clinicians should consider T. indotineae in patients with widespread ringworm, especially if they do not improve with topical antifungals or oral terbinafine, said the authors. If T. indotineae is suspected, state or local public health departments can direct clinicians to testing.

The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

BY ALICIA AULT

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is alerting clinicians to be on the lookout for a severe antifungal-resistant form of tinea, as it was recently detected in two patients in New York.

Tinea, or ringworm, one of the most common fungal infections, is responsible for almost 5 million outpatient visits and 690 hospitalizations annually, according to the CDC.

Over the past 10 years, severe, antifungal-resistant tinea has spread in South Asia, in part because of the rise of a new dermatophyte species known as Trichophyton indotineae, wrote the authors of a report on the two patients with the drug-resistant strain. This epidemic “has likely been driven by misuse and overuse of topical antifungals and corticosteroids,” added the authors, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The cases were detected by a New York City dermatologist. In the first case, a 28-year-old woman developed a widespread pruritic eruption in the summer of 2021. She did not consult a dermatologist until December, when she was in the third trimester of pregnancy. She had large, annular, scaly, pruritic plaques on her neck, abdomen, pubic region, and buttocks, but had no underlying medical conditions, no known exposures to someone with a similar rash, and no recent international travel history.

After she gave birth in January, she started oral terbinafine therapy but had no improvement after 2 weeks. Clinicians administered a 4-week course of itraconazole, which resolved the infection.

The second patient, a 47-year-old woman with no medical conditions, developed a rash while in Bangladesh in the summer of 2022. Other family members had a similar rash. She was treated with topical antifungal and steroid combination creams but had no resolution. Back in the United States, she was prescribed hydrocortisone 2.5% ointment and diphenhydramine, clotrimazole cream, and terbinafine cream in three successive emergency department visits. In December 2022, dermatologists, observing widespread, discrete, scaly, annular, pruritic plaques on the thighs and buttocks, prescribed a 4-week course of oral terbinafine. When the rash did not resolve, she was given 4 weeks of griseofulvin. The rash persisted, although there was 80% improvement. Clinicians are now considering itraconazole. The woman’s son and husband are also being evaluated, as they have similar rashes.

In both cases, skin culture isolates were initially identified as Trichophyton mentagrophytes. Further analysis at the New York State Department of Health’s lab, using Sanger sequencing of the internal transcribed spacer region of the ribosomal gene, followed by phylogenetic analysis, identified the isolates as T. indotineae.

The authors note that culture-based techniques used by most clinical laboratories typically misidentify T. indotineae as T. mentagrophytes or T. interdigitale. Genomic sequencing must be used to properly identify T. indotineae, they wrote.

Clinicians should consider T. indotineae in patients with widespread ringworm, especially if they do not improve with topical antifungals or oral terbinafine, said the authors. If T. indotineae is suspected, state or local public health departments can direct clinicians to testing.

The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

The past few years have seen major transformations in the way health care websites operate and interact with patients. To stay competitive, it is important to ensure that your website is adapting to this changing environment, and that it continues adapting as future changes further impact its performance and ranking.

In mid-2018, a major Google algorithm change, known to the IT community as the “Medic Update,” significantly changed search criteria for most health and wellness websites. Another big update went live in late 2021. Websites that have not evolved with these changes have dropped in search rankings and provide a poorer user experience all around.

Many potential patients are searching for your services online, so your website cannot be an afterthought. Not only does it need to be designed with your target audience in mind, but it is also important to consider the metrics Google and other search engines now use when assessing the quality of your website so that patients will find it in the first place.

Here are some features that you (or your website company) need to prioritize to keep your site current and atop search results in 2023 and beyond.

Begin with an understandable URL. Search engines use URLs to determine how well your site, or a portion of it, matches search criteria. URLs also need to make sense to searchers, especially when they link specific areas of expertise (more on that in a minute). For example, a URL like “jonesdermatology.com/?p=89021” is meaningless to anyone except programmers; but “jonesdermatology.com/psoriasistreatments” obviously leads to a page about psoriasis treatments. Search engines look for not only the most relevant, but also the most helpful and user-friendly answers to a user’s query.

Incidentally, if the URL for your site is not your own name, you should register your name as a separate domain name – even if you never use it – to be sure that a trickster or troll, or someone with the same name but a bad reputation, doesn’t get it.

Continue with a good meta description. That’s the grayish text that follows the title and URL in search results. Searchers will read it to confirm that your site is what they seek, so make sure it describes exactly what you do, including any areas of special expertise.

Make your practice approachable with photos. New patients are more comfortable when they know what you look like, so real photos of you and your staff are always more effective than stock photos of models. Photos or a video tour of your office will reassure prospective patients that they will be visiting a clean, modern, professional facility.

Describe your principal services in detail. You never know which specific service a prospective patient is searching for, so describe everything you offer. Don’t try to summarize everything on a single page; relevance is determined by how deeply a topic is covered, so each principal service should have a detailed description on its own page. Not only will your skills become more visible to search engines, but you can also use the space to enumerate your qualifications and expertise in each area. Whenever possible, write your descriptions in question-and-answer form. Searchers tend to ask questions (“what is the best ... ?”), particularly in voice searches. Search engines increasingly value sites that ask and answer common questions.

Make your site interactive. “Interactivity” is a major buzzword in modern search engine parlance. Once searchers make an appointment, they stop searching. If they have to wait until the next day to call your office, they may keep looking – and might find a competitor with online scheduling. HIPAA-compliant chatbots, secure messaging, and online patient portals to access medical records, lab results, and other important information will also set your site apart.

Testimonials are essential. Amazon.com taught us that candid reviews from customers go a long way toward building the trust necessary to buy products and services, and nowhere is that truer than for medical services. According to one study, when it comes to finding a doctor, 88% of people trust online reviews as much as a personal recommendation. Loyal patients will be happy to write you glowing reviews; feature them prominently.

How does your site look on small screens? More than half of all searches are now made on smartphones, so the more mobile-friendly your site is, the higher it will be ranked. Prospective patients who are forced to scroll forever, or zoom in to tap a link, are likely to become frustrated and move on. Mobile searchers prefer sites that provide the best experience for the least amount of effort, and rankings tend to reflect that preference. You can test how easily a visitor can use your website on a mobile device with Google’s free Mobile-Friendly Test..

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The past few years have seen major transformations in the way health care websites operate and interact with patients. To stay competitive, it is important to ensure that your website is adapting to this changing environment, and that it continues adapting as future changes further impact its performance and ranking.

In mid-2018, a major Google algorithm change, known to the IT community as the “Medic Update,” significantly changed search criteria for most health and wellness websites. Another big update went live in late 2021. Websites that have not evolved with these changes have dropped in search rankings and provide a poorer user experience all around.

Many potential patients are searching for your services online, so your website cannot be an afterthought. Not only does it need to be designed with your target audience in mind, but it is also important to consider the metrics Google and other search engines now use when assessing the quality of your website so that patients will find it in the first place.

Here are some features that you (or your website company) need to prioritize to keep your site current and atop search results in 2023 and beyond.

Begin with an understandable URL. Search engines use URLs to determine how well your site, or a portion of it, matches search criteria. URLs also need to make sense to searchers, especially when they link specific areas of expertise (more on that in a minute). For example, a URL like “jonesdermatology.com/?p=89021” is meaningless to anyone except programmers; but “jonesdermatology.com/psoriasistreatments” obviously leads to a page about psoriasis treatments. Search engines look for not only the most relevant, but also the most helpful and user-friendly answers to a user’s query.

Incidentally, if the URL for your site is not your own name, you should register your name as a separate domain name – even if you never use it – to be sure that a trickster or troll, or someone with the same name but a bad reputation, doesn’t get it.

Continue with a good meta description. That’s the grayish text that follows the title and URL in search results. Searchers will read it to confirm that your site is what they seek, so make sure it describes exactly what you do, including any areas of special expertise.

Make your practice approachable with photos. New patients are more comfortable when they know what you look like, so real photos of you and your staff are always more effective than stock photos of models. Photos or a video tour of your office will reassure prospective patients that they will be visiting a clean, modern, professional facility.

Describe your principal services in detail. You never know which specific service a prospective patient is searching for, so describe everything you offer. Don’t try to summarize everything on a single page; relevance is determined by how deeply a topic is covered, so each principal service should have a detailed description on its own page. Not only will your skills become more visible to search engines, but you can also use the space to enumerate your qualifications and expertise in each area. Whenever possible, write your descriptions in question-and-answer form. Searchers tend to ask questions (“what is the best ... ?”), particularly in voice searches. Search engines increasingly value sites that ask and answer common questions.

Make your site interactive. “Interactivity” is a major buzzword in modern search engine parlance. Once searchers make an appointment, they stop searching. If they have to wait until the next day to call your office, they may keep looking – and might find a competitor with online scheduling. HIPAA-compliant chatbots, secure messaging, and online patient portals to access medical records, lab results, and other important information will also set your site apart.

Testimonials are essential. Amazon.com taught us that candid reviews from customers go a long way toward building the trust necessary to buy products and services, and nowhere is that truer than for medical services. According to one study, when it comes to finding a doctor, 88% of people trust online reviews as much as a personal recommendation. Loyal patients will be happy to write you glowing reviews; feature them prominently.

How does your site look on small screens? More than half of all searches are now made on smartphones, so the more mobile-friendly your site is, the higher it will be ranked. Prospective patients who are forced to scroll forever, or zoom in to tap a link, are likely to become frustrated and move on. Mobile searchers prefer sites that provide the best experience for the least amount of effort, and rankings tend to reflect that preference. You can test how easily a visitor can use your website on a mobile device with Google’s free Mobile-Friendly Test..

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The past few years have seen major transformations in the way health care websites operate and interact with patients. To stay competitive, it is important to ensure that your website is adapting to this changing environment, and that it continues adapting as future changes further impact its performance and ranking.

In mid-2018, a major Google algorithm change, known to the IT community as the “Medic Update,” significantly changed search criteria for most health and wellness websites. Another big update went live in late 2021. Websites that have not evolved with these changes have dropped in search rankings and provide a poorer user experience all around.

Many potential patients are searching for your services online, so your website cannot be an afterthought. Not only does it need to be designed with your target audience in mind, but it is also important to consider the metrics Google and other search engines now use when assessing the quality of your website so that patients will find it in the first place.

Here are some features that you (or your website company) need to prioritize to keep your site current and atop search results in 2023 and beyond.

Begin with an understandable URL. Search engines use URLs to determine how well your site, or a portion of it, matches search criteria. URLs also need to make sense to searchers, especially when they link specific areas of expertise (more on that in a minute). For example, a URL like “jonesdermatology.com/?p=89021” is meaningless to anyone except programmers; but “jonesdermatology.com/psoriasistreatments” obviously leads to a page about psoriasis treatments. Search engines look for not only the most relevant, but also the most helpful and user-friendly answers to a user’s query.

Incidentally, if the URL for your site is not your own name, you should register your name as a separate domain name – even if you never use it – to be sure that a trickster or troll, or someone with the same name but a bad reputation, doesn’t get it.

Continue with a good meta description. That’s the grayish text that follows the title and URL in search results. Searchers will read it to confirm that your site is what they seek, so make sure it describes exactly what you do, including any areas of special expertise.

Make your practice approachable with photos. New patients are more comfortable when they know what you look like, so real photos of you and your staff are always more effective than stock photos of models. Photos or a video tour of your office will reassure prospective patients that they will be visiting a clean, modern, professional facility.

Describe your principal services in detail. You never know which specific service a prospective patient is searching for, so describe everything you offer. Don’t try to summarize everything on a single page; relevance is determined by how deeply a topic is covered, so each principal service should have a detailed description on its own page. Not only will your skills become more visible to search engines, but you can also use the space to enumerate your qualifications and expertise in each area. Whenever possible, write your descriptions in question-and-answer form. Searchers tend to ask questions (“what is the best ... ?”), particularly in voice searches. Search engines increasingly value sites that ask and answer common questions.

Make your site interactive. “Interactivity” is a major buzzword in modern search engine parlance. Once searchers make an appointment, they stop searching. If they have to wait until the next day to call your office, they may keep looking – and might find a competitor with online scheduling. HIPAA-compliant chatbots, secure messaging, and online patient portals to access medical records, lab results, and other important information will also set your site apart.

Testimonials are essential. Amazon.com taught us that candid reviews from customers go a long way toward building the trust necessary to buy products and services, and nowhere is that truer than for medical services. According to one study, when it comes to finding a doctor, 88% of people trust online reviews as much as a personal recommendation. Loyal patients will be happy to write you glowing reviews; feature them prominently.

How does your site look on small screens? More than half of all searches are now made on smartphones, so the more mobile-friendly your site is, the higher it will be ranked. Prospective patients who are forced to scroll forever, or zoom in to tap a link, are likely to become frustrated and move on. Mobile searchers prefer sites that provide the best experience for the least amount of effort, and rankings tend to reflect that preference. You can test how easily a visitor can use your website on a mobile device with Google’s free Mobile-Friendly Test..

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The Food and Drug Administration has announced new action to address ongoing concerns about misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose of prescription stimulants used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

“The current prescribing information for some prescription stimulants does not provide up-to-date warnings about the harms of misuse and abuse, and particularly that most individuals who misuse prescription stimulants get their drugs from other family members or peers,” the FDA said in a drug safety communication.

Going forward, updated drug labels will clearly state that patients should never share their prescription stimulants with anyone, and the boxed warning will describe the risks of misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose consistently for all medicines in the class, the FDA said.

The boxed warning will also advise heath care professionals to monitor patients closely for signs and symptoms of misuse, abuse, and addiction.

Patient medication guides will be updated to educate patients and caregivers about these risks.

The FDA encourages prescribers to assess patient risk of misuse, abuse, and addiction before prescribing a stimulant and to counsel patients not to share the medication.
 

Friends and family

A recent literature review by the FDA found that friends and family members are the most common source of prescription stimulant misuse and abuse (nonmedical use). Estimates of such use range from 56% to 80%.

Misuse/abuse of a patient’s own prescription make up 10%-20% of people who report nonmedical stimulant use.

Less commonly reported sources include drug dealers or strangers (4%-7% of people who report nonmedical use) and the Internet (1%-2%).

The groups at highest risk for misuse/abuse of prescription stimulants are young adults aged 18-25 years, college students, and adolescents and young adults who have been diagnosed with ADHD, the FDA said.

Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, prescriptions for stimulants increased 10% among older children and adults.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has announced new action to address ongoing concerns about misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose of prescription stimulants used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

“The current prescribing information for some prescription stimulants does not provide up-to-date warnings about the harms of misuse and abuse, and particularly that most individuals who misuse prescription stimulants get their drugs from other family members or peers,” the FDA said in a drug safety communication.

Going forward, updated drug labels will clearly state that patients should never share their prescription stimulants with anyone, and the boxed warning will describe the risks of misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose consistently for all medicines in the class, the FDA said.

The boxed warning will also advise heath care professionals to monitor patients closely for signs and symptoms of misuse, abuse, and addiction.

Patient medication guides will be updated to educate patients and caregivers about these risks.

The FDA encourages prescribers to assess patient risk of misuse, abuse, and addiction before prescribing a stimulant and to counsel patients not to share the medication.
 

Friends and family

A recent literature review by the FDA found that friends and family members are the most common source of prescription stimulant misuse and abuse (nonmedical use). Estimates of such use range from 56% to 80%.

Misuse/abuse of a patient’s own prescription make up 10%-20% of people who report nonmedical stimulant use.

Less commonly reported sources include drug dealers or strangers (4%-7% of people who report nonmedical use) and the Internet (1%-2%).

The groups at highest risk for misuse/abuse of prescription stimulants are young adults aged 18-25 years, college students, and adolescents and young adults who have been diagnosed with ADHD, the FDA said.

Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, prescriptions for stimulants increased 10% among older children and adults.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has announced new action to address ongoing concerns about misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose of prescription stimulants used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

“The current prescribing information for some prescription stimulants does not provide up-to-date warnings about the harms of misuse and abuse, and particularly that most individuals who misuse prescription stimulants get their drugs from other family members or peers,” the FDA said in a drug safety communication.

Going forward, updated drug labels will clearly state that patients should never share their prescription stimulants with anyone, and the boxed warning will describe the risks of misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose consistently for all medicines in the class, the FDA said.

The boxed warning will also advise heath care professionals to monitor patients closely for signs and symptoms of misuse, abuse, and addiction.

Patient medication guides will be updated to educate patients and caregivers about these risks.

The FDA encourages prescribers to assess patient risk of misuse, abuse, and addiction before prescribing a stimulant and to counsel patients not to share the medication.
 

Friends and family

A recent literature review by the FDA found that friends and family members are the most common source of prescription stimulant misuse and abuse (nonmedical use). Estimates of such use range from 56% to 80%.

Misuse/abuse of a patient’s own prescription make up 10%-20% of people who report nonmedical stimulant use.

Less commonly reported sources include drug dealers or strangers (4%-7% of people who report nonmedical use) and the Internet (1%-2%).

The groups at highest risk for misuse/abuse of prescription stimulants are young adults aged 18-25 years, college students, and adolescents and young adults who have been diagnosed with ADHD, the FDA said.

Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, prescriptions for stimulants increased 10% among older children and adults.
 

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

Lebrikizumab, an interleukin (IL)–13 inhibitor under investigation for adult and adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), was efficacious in improving facial and hand dermatitis in a secondary analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials of the drug, Jenny E. Murase, MD, reported at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.

At week 16 in the ADvocate 1, ADvocate 2, and ADhere trials, with and without concomitant topical corticosteroid (TCS) use, at least 58% of treated patients experienced improvement in facial dermatitis, and 62% or more experienced improvement in hand dermatitis – statistically significant differences over placebo.

Injenerker/Getty Images

“Lebrikizumab was efficacious in clearing and improving facial and hand dermatitis, burdensome and difficult-to-treat areas, in most patients with moderate to severe AD,” said Dr. Murase, of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of medical dermatology consultative services and patch testing for the Palo Alto (Calf.) Foundation Medical Group.

In another late-breaking abstract presented at the RAD conference, the injectable biologic dupilumab – now in its 6th year on the market – was reported by Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, to “rapidly and significantly” improve the signs, symptoms, and quality of life in some adults and adolescents with moderate to severe hand and foot AD in a recently completed phase 3 trial of dupilumab.
 

Lebrikizumab results for facial, hand dermatitis

The ADvocate 1 and ADvocate 2 trials evaluated lebrikizumab monotherapy and randomized patients to receive 250 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks (after a 500-mg loading dose at baseline and week 2) or placebo. (Patients who received any corticosteroid as a rescue medication were considered nonresponders.) The ADhere trial compared low to mid–potency TCS plus lebrikizumab, using the same dosing of lebrikizumab as in the ADvocate studies, versus TCS plus placebo.

In all three trials, with a total of more than 1,000 participants, clinicians assessed for the presence or absence of facial or hand dermatitis at baseline. At week 16, they then assessed the change from baseline based on a 4-point scale of cleared, improved, no change, and worsened. “Improvement” was defined as cleared or improved.

Both facial and hand dermatitis were identified in a majority of patients at baseline. For instance, in ADvocate 1, facial dermatitis was identified in 71.4% of patients in the lebrikizumab group and 80.9% of those in the placebo group. Hand dermatitis was identified in 72% and 73% of the treatment and placebo groups, respectively.

Across the trials, at 16 weeks, 58%-69% of adult and adolescent patients receiving lebrikizumab had improvement in facial dermatitis, compared with 22%-46% on placebo. For hand dermatitis, 62%-73% experienced improvement, compared with 19%-43% on placebo, respectively. Proportions of improved patients in both the lebrikizumab and placebo groups were highest in the ADhere trial, Dr. Murase reported.

In the ADvocate trials, 16 weeks marked the end of the induction phase and the start of a 36-week maintenance period. The ADhere trial was a 16-week study. Overall results from ADhere were published in January in JAMA Dermatology, and results from the 16-week induction period of the ADvocate trials were published in March in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Lebrikizumab received fast-track designation for AD by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019. Regulatory decisions in the United States and the European Union are expected later this year, according to a press release from Eli Lilly, the drug’s developer.

Asked to comment on the study results, Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the post-hoc results promising. “While newer, more targeted treatments for AD offer the possibility of overall improvement and long-term disease control, we do not have sufficient data to help guide us when it comes to selecting treatment based on which area of the body is affected,” she explained. Most published findings have used “overall scores and not scores stratified by body region.”

The new findings, “help expand our current understanding of how the drug works for different areas of the body,” which can help inform treatment discussions with patients, she added.

AD can be especially challenging to treat when it involves “what are considered to be more sensitive areas such as the face or hands,” said Dr. Chiesa Fuxench. Challenges may include poor tolerance to topical medications, concerns for safety with long-term use, and the need for constant reapplication.

“Those of us who treat a large number of AD patients suspect that the impact and/or burden of AD may be different depending on what areas of the body are affected,” but more data are needed, she added. Limitations of the study, she noted, include “that the study may not have been adequately powered and that the sample size was small.”
 

Dupilumab result for hand, foot dermatitis

The phase 3 LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial randomized 133 patients with moderate to severe atopic hand and/or foot dermatitis to a 16-week course of dupilumab (Dupixent) monotherapy, 300 mg every 2 weeks in adults and 200 or 300 mg every 2 weeks in adolescents, or placebo. Patients were then followed during a 12-week safety follow-up period.

Significantly more patients in the dupilumab group achieved the primary endpoint of a hand and foot Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0/1 at 16 weeks: 40.3% vs. 16.7% in the placebo group (P = .003). Statistical significance was reached at week 8, reported Dr. Silverberg, professor of dermatology and director of clinical research at George Washington University, Washington. Dupilumab, a human monoclonal IgG4 antibody that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, is FDA approved for treating moderate to severe AD in patients age 6 months and older, among other indications.

In addition, the proportion of patients achieving a 4-point or greater improvement in the weekly average of daily hand and foot Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PPNRS), the key secondary endpoint, was about fourfold greater with dupilumab: 52.2%, compared with 13.6% on placebo (P < .0001). This reduction in itch reached statistical significance by week 1. Dupilumab-treated patients also experienced significant improvement in other lesion measures and in Quality of Life in Hand Eczema Questionnaire scores, Dr. Silverberg noted.

The patients had a mean age in their 30s and a mean duration of atopic hand and/or foot dermatitis of 15-16 years. For more than one-quarter of patients, morphology was hyperkeratotic, which “has to be one of the toughest subsets to affect positive change in,” he said.

About 40% of patients had lesions on the hands only, and more than half had lesions on both hands and feet. “This is pretty realistic – we generally don’t see much isolated foot dermatitis in the AD population,” Dr. Silverberg said.

About 70%-75% had concomitant AD outside of the hands and feet, mostly of moderate severity. Patients with positive patch tests or whose hand and foot eczema was believed to be driven by irritants were excluded from the trial, as were patients who had used TCS or other topical treatments within 2 weeks of the baseline visit.

Rescue medication use was low (3% with dupilumab vs. 21% with placebo), and adverse events were “pretty consistent with everything we’ve seen with dupilumab,” said Dr. Silverberg.

Commenting on this study, Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said she was “excited to see [the findings], as hand and foot AD can often be quite challenging to treat in clinic.” The improvements in overall disease scores, itch, and quality of life scores – with fairly good tolerance – are “reassuring and what we would expect based on our current experience with dupilumab,” she said.

The lebrikizumab study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. The dupilumab study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Some of the data were also reported by lead investigator Eric Simpson, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in March 2023.

Dr. Murase reported consulting/advising for Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma, UCB, Sanofi-Genzyme, and non-CME speaking/honoraria for UCB and Regeneron. Dr. Silverberg reported consulting fees and fees for non-CME services from Sanofi Genzyme, Regeneron, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench, who was a speaker at the RAD meeting but was not involved in the studies, disclosed receiving honoraria for CME work in AD sponsored by education grants from Regeneron/Sanofi, and grant/research support from Lilly, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among other disclosures.

Lebrikizumab, an interleukin (IL)–13 inhibitor under investigation for adult and adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), was efficacious in improving facial and hand dermatitis in a secondary analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials of the drug, Jenny E. Murase, MD, reported at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.

At week 16 in the ADvocate 1, ADvocate 2, and ADhere trials, with and without concomitant topical corticosteroid (TCS) use, at least 58% of treated patients experienced improvement in facial dermatitis, and 62% or more experienced improvement in hand dermatitis – statistically significant differences over placebo.

Injenerker/Getty Images

“Lebrikizumab was efficacious in clearing and improving facial and hand dermatitis, burdensome and difficult-to-treat areas, in most patients with moderate to severe AD,” said Dr. Murase, of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of medical dermatology consultative services and patch testing for the Palo Alto (Calf.) Foundation Medical Group.

In another late-breaking abstract presented at the RAD conference, the injectable biologic dupilumab – now in its 6th year on the market – was reported by Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, to “rapidly and significantly” improve the signs, symptoms, and quality of life in some adults and adolescents with moderate to severe hand and foot AD in a recently completed phase 3 trial of dupilumab.
 

Lebrikizumab results for facial, hand dermatitis

The ADvocate 1 and ADvocate 2 trials evaluated lebrikizumab monotherapy and randomized patients to receive 250 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks (after a 500-mg loading dose at baseline and week 2) or placebo. (Patients who received any corticosteroid as a rescue medication were considered nonresponders.) The ADhere trial compared low to mid–potency TCS plus lebrikizumab, using the same dosing of lebrikizumab as in the ADvocate studies, versus TCS plus placebo.

In all three trials, with a total of more than 1,000 participants, clinicians assessed for the presence or absence of facial or hand dermatitis at baseline. At week 16, they then assessed the change from baseline based on a 4-point scale of cleared, improved, no change, and worsened. “Improvement” was defined as cleared or improved.

Both facial and hand dermatitis were identified in a majority of patients at baseline. For instance, in ADvocate 1, facial dermatitis was identified in 71.4% of patients in the lebrikizumab group and 80.9% of those in the placebo group. Hand dermatitis was identified in 72% and 73% of the treatment and placebo groups, respectively.

Across the trials, at 16 weeks, 58%-69% of adult and adolescent patients receiving lebrikizumab had improvement in facial dermatitis, compared with 22%-46% on placebo. For hand dermatitis, 62%-73% experienced improvement, compared with 19%-43% on placebo, respectively. Proportions of improved patients in both the lebrikizumab and placebo groups were highest in the ADhere trial, Dr. Murase reported.

In the ADvocate trials, 16 weeks marked the end of the induction phase and the start of a 36-week maintenance period. The ADhere trial was a 16-week study. Overall results from ADhere were published in January in JAMA Dermatology, and results from the 16-week induction period of the ADvocate trials were published in March in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Lebrikizumab received fast-track designation for AD by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019. Regulatory decisions in the United States and the European Union are expected later this year, according to a press release from Eli Lilly, the drug’s developer.

Asked to comment on the study results, Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the post-hoc results promising. “While newer, more targeted treatments for AD offer the possibility of overall improvement and long-term disease control, we do not have sufficient data to help guide us when it comes to selecting treatment based on which area of the body is affected,” she explained. Most published findings have used “overall scores and not scores stratified by body region.”

The new findings, “help expand our current understanding of how the drug works for different areas of the body,” which can help inform treatment discussions with patients, she added.

AD can be especially challenging to treat when it involves “what are considered to be more sensitive areas such as the face or hands,” said Dr. Chiesa Fuxench. Challenges may include poor tolerance to topical medications, concerns for safety with long-term use, and the need for constant reapplication.

“Those of us who treat a large number of AD patients suspect that the impact and/or burden of AD may be different depending on what areas of the body are affected,” but more data are needed, she added. Limitations of the study, she noted, include “that the study may not have been adequately powered and that the sample size was small.”
 

Dupilumab result for hand, foot dermatitis

The phase 3 LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial randomized 133 patients with moderate to severe atopic hand and/or foot dermatitis to a 16-week course of dupilumab (Dupixent) monotherapy, 300 mg every 2 weeks in adults and 200 or 300 mg every 2 weeks in adolescents, or placebo. Patients were then followed during a 12-week safety follow-up period.

Significantly more patients in the dupilumab group achieved the primary endpoint of a hand and foot Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0/1 at 16 weeks: 40.3% vs. 16.7% in the placebo group (P = .003). Statistical significance was reached at week 8, reported Dr. Silverberg, professor of dermatology and director of clinical research at George Washington University, Washington. Dupilumab, a human monoclonal IgG4 antibody that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, is FDA approved for treating moderate to severe AD in patients age 6 months and older, among other indications.

In addition, the proportion of patients achieving a 4-point or greater improvement in the weekly average of daily hand and foot Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PPNRS), the key secondary endpoint, was about fourfold greater with dupilumab: 52.2%, compared with 13.6% on placebo (P < .0001). This reduction in itch reached statistical significance by week 1. Dupilumab-treated patients also experienced significant improvement in other lesion measures and in Quality of Life in Hand Eczema Questionnaire scores, Dr. Silverberg noted.

The patients had a mean age in their 30s and a mean duration of atopic hand and/or foot dermatitis of 15-16 years. For more than one-quarter of patients, morphology was hyperkeratotic, which “has to be one of the toughest subsets to affect positive change in,” he said.

About 40% of patients had lesions on the hands only, and more than half had lesions on both hands and feet. “This is pretty realistic – we generally don’t see much isolated foot dermatitis in the AD population,” Dr. Silverberg said.

About 70%-75% had concomitant AD outside of the hands and feet, mostly of moderate severity. Patients with positive patch tests or whose hand and foot eczema was believed to be driven by irritants were excluded from the trial, as were patients who had used TCS or other topical treatments within 2 weeks of the baseline visit.

Rescue medication use was low (3% with dupilumab vs. 21% with placebo), and adverse events were “pretty consistent with everything we’ve seen with dupilumab,” said Dr. Silverberg.

Commenting on this study, Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said she was “excited to see [the findings], as hand and foot AD can often be quite challenging to treat in clinic.” The improvements in overall disease scores, itch, and quality of life scores – with fairly good tolerance – are “reassuring and what we would expect based on our current experience with dupilumab,” she said.

The lebrikizumab study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. The dupilumab study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Some of the data were also reported by lead investigator Eric Simpson, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in March 2023.

Dr. Murase reported consulting/advising for Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma, UCB, Sanofi-Genzyme, and non-CME speaking/honoraria for UCB and Regeneron. Dr. Silverberg reported consulting fees and fees for non-CME services from Sanofi Genzyme, Regeneron, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench, who was a speaker at the RAD meeting but was not involved in the studies, disclosed receiving honoraria for CME work in AD sponsored by education grants from Regeneron/Sanofi, and grant/research support from Lilly, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among other disclosures.

Lebrikizumab, an interleukin (IL)–13 inhibitor under investigation for adult and adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), was efficacious in improving facial and hand dermatitis in a secondary analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials of the drug, Jenny E. Murase, MD, reported at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.

At week 16 in the ADvocate 1, ADvocate 2, and ADhere trials, with and without concomitant topical corticosteroid (TCS) use, at least 58% of treated patients experienced improvement in facial dermatitis, and 62% or more experienced improvement in hand dermatitis – statistically significant differences over placebo.

Injenerker/Getty Images

“Lebrikizumab was efficacious in clearing and improving facial and hand dermatitis, burdensome and difficult-to-treat areas, in most patients with moderate to severe AD,” said Dr. Murase, of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of medical dermatology consultative services and patch testing for the Palo Alto (Calf.) Foundation Medical Group.

In another late-breaking abstract presented at the RAD conference, the injectable biologic dupilumab – now in its 6th year on the market – was reported by Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, to “rapidly and significantly” improve the signs, symptoms, and quality of life in some adults and adolescents with moderate to severe hand and foot AD in a recently completed phase 3 trial of dupilumab.
 

Lebrikizumab results for facial, hand dermatitis

The ADvocate 1 and ADvocate 2 trials evaluated lebrikizumab monotherapy and randomized patients to receive 250 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks (after a 500-mg loading dose at baseline and week 2) or placebo. (Patients who received any corticosteroid as a rescue medication were considered nonresponders.) The ADhere trial compared low to mid–potency TCS plus lebrikizumab, using the same dosing of lebrikizumab as in the ADvocate studies, versus TCS plus placebo.

In all three trials, with a total of more than 1,000 participants, clinicians assessed for the presence or absence of facial or hand dermatitis at baseline. At week 16, they then assessed the change from baseline based on a 4-point scale of cleared, improved, no change, and worsened. “Improvement” was defined as cleared or improved.

Both facial and hand dermatitis were identified in a majority of patients at baseline. For instance, in ADvocate 1, facial dermatitis was identified in 71.4% of patients in the lebrikizumab group and 80.9% of those in the placebo group. Hand dermatitis was identified in 72% and 73% of the treatment and placebo groups, respectively.

Across the trials, at 16 weeks, 58%-69% of adult and adolescent patients receiving lebrikizumab had improvement in facial dermatitis, compared with 22%-46% on placebo. For hand dermatitis, 62%-73% experienced improvement, compared with 19%-43% on placebo, respectively. Proportions of improved patients in both the lebrikizumab and placebo groups were highest in the ADhere trial, Dr. Murase reported.

In the ADvocate trials, 16 weeks marked the end of the induction phase and the start of a 36-week maintenance period. The ADhere trial was a 16-week study. Overall results from ADhere were published in January in JAMA Dermatology, and results from the 16-week induction period of the ADvocate trials were published in March in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Lebrikizumab received fast-track designation for AD by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019. Regulatory decisions in the United States and the European Union are expected later this year, according to a press release from Eli Lilly, the drug’s developer.

Asked to comment on the study results, Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the post-hoc results promising. “While newer, more targeted treatments for AD offer the possibility of overall improvement and long-term disease control, we do not have sufficient data to help guide us when it comes to selecting treatment based on which area of the body is affected,” she explained. Most published findings have used “overall scores and not scores stratified by body region.”

The new findings, “help expand our current understanding of how the drug works for different areas of the body,” which can help inform treatment discussions with patients, she added.

AD can be especially challenging to treat when it involves “what are considered to be more sensitive areas such as the face or hands,” said Dr. Chiesa Fuxench. Challenges may include poor tolerance to topical medications, concerns for safety with long-term use, and the need for constant reapplication.

“Those of us who treat a large number of AD patients suspect that the impact and/or burden of AD may be different depending on what areas of the body are affected,” but more data are needed, she added. Limitations of the study, she noted, include “that the study may not have been adequately powered and that the sample size was small.”
 

Dupilumab result for hand, foot dermatitis

The phase 3 LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial randomized 133 patients with moderate to severe atopic hand and/or foot dermatitis to a 16-week course of dupilumab (Dupixent) monotherapy, 300 mg every 2 weeks in adults and 200 or 300 mg every 2 weeks in adolescents, or placebo. Patients were then followed during a 12-week safety follow-up period.

Significantly more patients in the dupilumab group achieved the primary endpoint of a hand and foot Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0/1 at 16 weeks: 40.3% vs. 16.7% in the placebo group (P = .003). Statistical significance was reached at week 8, reported Dr. Silverberg, professor of dermatology and director of clinical research at George Washington University, Washington. Dupilumab, a human monoclonal IgG4 antibody that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, is FDA approved for treating moderate to severe AD in patients age 6 months and older, among other indications.

In addition, the proportion of patients achieving a 4-point or greater improvement in the weekly average of daily hand and foot Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PPNRS), the key secondary endpoint, was about fourfold greater with dupilumab: 52.2%, compared with 13.6% on placebo (P < .0001). This reduction in itch reached statistical significance by week 1. Dupilumab-treated patients also experienced significant improvement in other lesion measures and in Quality of Life in Hand Eczema Questionnaire scores, Dr. Silverberg noted.

The patients had a mean age in their 30s and a mean duration of atopic hand and/or foot dermatitis of 15-16 years. For more than one-quarter of patients, morphology was hyperkeratotic, which “has to be one of the toughest subsets to affect positive change in,” he said.

About 40% of patients had lesions on the hands only, and more than half had lesions on both hands and feet. “This is pretty realistic – we generally don’t see much isolated foot dermatitis in the AD population,” Dr. Silverberg said.

About 70%-75% had concomitant AD outside of the hands and feet, mostly of moderate severity. Patients with positive patch tests or whose hand and foot eczema was believed to be driven by irritants were excluded from the trial, as were patients who had used TCS or other topical treatments within 2 weeks of the baseline visit.

Rescue medication use was low (3% with dupilumab vs. 21% with placebo), and adverse events were “pretty consistent with everything we’ve seen with dupilumab,” said Dr. Silverberg.

Commenting on this study, Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said she was “excited to see [the findings], as hand and foot AD can often be quite challenging to treat in clinic.” The improvements in overall disease scores, itch, and quality of life scores – with fairly good tolerance – are “reassuring and what we would expect based on our current experience with dupilumab,” she said.

The lebrikizumab study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. The dupilumab study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Some of the data were also reported by lead investigator Eric Simpson, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in March 2023.

Dr. Murase reported consulting/advising for Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma, UCB, Sanofi-Genzyme, and non-CME speaking/honoraria for UCB and Regeneron. Dr. Silverberg reported consulting fees and fees for non-CME services from Sanofi Genzyme, Regeneron, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench, who was a speaker at the RAD meeting but was not involved in the studies, disclosed receiving honoraria for CME work in AD sponsored by education grants from Regeneron/Sanofi, and grant/research support from Lilly, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among other disclosures.

Adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in 24.9% of women treated for gestational diabetes at less than 20 weeks’ gestation compared to 30.5% of controls treated later or not at all, based on data from nearly 800 women.

Screening and treatment for gestational diabetes are currently recommended at 24-28 weeks’ gestation, with earlier testing recommended for women at increased risk, but the potential benefits of earlier intervention remain debatable, wrote David Simmons, MD, of Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, Australia, and colleagues.

“Until now, there has been complete equipoise over whether to treat hyperglycemia below that of overt diabetes early in pregnancy,” Dr. Simmons said in an interview. The conflicting questions: “Would early treatment reduce the excess deposition of fat on the baby with all of its sequelae; but would early treatment reduce fuel supply to some babies at a critical time and lead to SGA [small for gestational age]?” Dr. Simmons noted.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Simmons and colleagues randomized 406 women aged 18 years and older with singleton pregnancies to immediate treatment for gestational diabetes. Another 396 women were randomized to a control group for deferred treatment or no treatment, based on results of an oral glucose tolerance test at 24-28 weeks’ gestation. All participants had at least one risk factor for hyperglycemia, and met the World Health Organization criteria for gestational diabetes. Women with preexisting diabetes or contraindicating comorbid medical conditions were excluded.

The study had three primary outcomes. The first was a composite of neonatal outcomes including birth before 37 weeks’ gestation, birth weight of 4,500 g or higher, birth trauma, neonatal respiratory distress, phototherapy, stillbirth or neonatal death, or shoulder dystocia.

The final sample included 748 women for adverse neonatal outcomes, 750 for pregnancy-related hypertension, and 492 for neonatal lean body mass. The mean age of the participants was 32 years; approximately one-third were white European and another third were South Asian. Overall baseline demographics were similar between the groups, and the initial oral glucose tolerance tests were performed at a mean of 15.6 weeks’ gestation.

Overall, 24.9% of women in the early treatment group experienced an adverse neonatal event vs. 30.5% of controls, for an adjusted risk difference of –5.6% and adjusted relative risk of 0.82.

Notably, in an exploratory subgroup analysis, respiratory distress occurred in 9.8% of infants born to women in the immediate treatment group vs. 17.0% of infants in the control group. “Neonatal respiratory distress was the main driver of the between-group difference observed for the first primary outcome,” the researchers wrote. A prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that the impact of an earlier intervention on adverse neonatal outcomes might be greater among women with a higher glycemic value and those whose oral glucose tolerance tests occurred at less than 14 weeks’ gestation, they noted. Stillbirths or neonatal deaths were similar and infrequent in both groups.

Pregnancy-related hypertension occurred in 10.6% of the immediate-treatment group and 9.9% of the controls group (adjusted risk difference, 0.7%). For the third outcome, the mean neonatal lean body mass was 2.86 g in the immediate-treatment group and 2.91 g for the controls (adjusted mean difference, −0.04 g).

No differences in serious adverse events related to either screening or treatment were noted between the groups.
 

Impact on neonatal outcomes merits further study

Dr. Simmons said that he was surprised by the study findings. “We thought if there was an effect, it would be small, but it isn’t,” he told this publication.

“If you combine the severe adverse outcomes, the perineal trauma and the reduction in days in NICU/special care unit, this is a significant impact on morbidity and likely on cost,” and researchers are currently examining data for cost-effectiveness, he said.

“We did not expect the likely large impact on reducing respiratory distress and perineal trauma,” he noted. “These findings have not been previously reported, perhaps because they were not looked for.” By contrast, “we thought here might be reductions in lower gestational age and cesarean delivery, but there was not,” he added.

The findings were limited by several factors including the nonstandardized approach to gestational diabetes treatment and the use of third-trimester treatment targets that had not been tested in earlier trimesters, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on women already at high risk for hyperglycemia; therefore, the results might not generalize to women not at risk, they wrote.

The current study represents a beginning of answers, with data suggesting that early treatment for gestational diabetes reduces severe adverse pregnancy outcomes, days in NICU/special care unit, and perineal trauma, likely from the first trimester, said Dr. Simmons. However, the findings must be interpreted with caution, as criteria that are too low “might lead to more small babies,” he said. “We look forward to working with others to translate these findings into practice,” he added.

Much more research is needed to answer the many questions prompted by the current study, including who did and did not have complications, Dr. Simmons told this publication. Other studies are needed to collect data on cost-effectiveness, as well as consumer views, especially “different perspectives from different parts of the globe,” he said. Although there is not enough evidence yet to draw conclusions about the role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in managing gestational diabetes, many studies are underway; “we look forward to the results,” of these studies, Dr. Simmons added.
 

Findings support early screening

Gestational diabetes is one of the most common medical complications of pregnancy, and accounts for more than 80% of diabetes-related diagnoses in pregnancy, said Emily Fay, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.

“Previous studies have found that women with gestational diabetes are at higher risk in their pregnancy, including higher chance of developing preeclampsia, higher chance of cesarean delivery, and higher risks for their baby, including risk of shoulder dystocia, birth trauma, and jaundice, and higher birth weights,” she said. “Fortunately, studies have also shown that treatment of gestational diabetes helps lower these risks,” she noted. Currently, patients undergo routine screening for gestational diabetes between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy, but some who have risk factors for gestational diabetes may have screening in the early part of pregnancy, said Dr. Fay.

The current findings were not surprising overall, said Dr. Fay, who was not involved in the study. “The study authors looked at a variety of outcomes including neonatal adverse outcomes, neonatal body weight, and pregnancy-related hypertension,” she said.

The researchers found that patients treated early had a lower rate of adverse neonatal outcomes, which was to be expected, Dr. Fay said. “They did not find a difference in neonatal body weight; this also was not surprising, as the women who were not in the early treatment group still received treatment at the time of diagnosis later in pregnancy, which likely helped normalize the weights,” she explained.

“My takeaway from this study is that we should continue to screen patients with risk factors for gestational diabetes early in pregnancy and treat them at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fay told this publication. However, barriers that may exist to early treatment involve access to care, including being able to see a provider early in pregnancy, she said. “The treatment for gestational diabetes includes dietary education with diet changes and checking blood sugars frequently. Access to nutrition education can be limited and access to healthy foods can be expensive and difficult to obtain,” she noted. “Checking blood sugars throughout the day can also be difficult for those who are busy or working and who may not have the ability to take time to do this,” she said. However, “these barriers may be overcome by health care reform that improves patient access to and coverage of pregnancy care, improved access and affordability of healthy foods, and employer flexibility to allow the time and space to check blood sugars if needed,” she added.

Looking ahead, the use of continuous glucose monitors in pregnancy is an expanding area of research, said Dr. Fay. “Patients can quickly view their blood sugar without the use of finger sticks, which may help overcome some of the barriers patients may have with using finger sticks,” she noted. “Continuous glucose monitors have been used for those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes with success, and we need to better understand if these can also be helpful in gestational diabetes,” she said. Dr. Fay and colleagues at the University of Washington are currently conducting an ongoing study to explore the use of CGM in gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Region Örebro Research Committee, the Medical Scientific Fund of the Mayor of Vienna, the South Western Sydney Local Health District Academic Unit, and a Western Sydney University Ainsworth Trust Grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Fay had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in 24.9% of women treated for gestational diabetes at less than 20 weeks’ gestation compared to 30.5% of controls treated later or not at all, based on data from nearly 800 women.

Screening and treatment for gestational diabetes are currently recommended at 24-28 weeks’ gestation, with earlier testing recommended for women at increased risk, but the potential benefits of earlier intervention remain debatable, wrote David Simmons, MD, of Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, Australia, and colleagues.

“Until now, there has been complete equipoise over whether to treat hyperglycemia below that of overt diabetes early in pregnancy,” Dr. Simmons said in an interview. The conflicting questions: “Would early treatment reduce the excess deposition of fat on the baby with all of its sequelae; but would early treatment reduce fuel supply to some babies at a critical time and lead to SGA [small for gestational age]?” Dr. Simmons noted.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Simmons and colleagues randomized 406 women aged 18 years and older with singleton pregnancies to immediate treatment for gestational diabetes. Another 396 women were randomized to a control group for deferred treatment or no treatment, based on results of an oral glucose tolerance test at 24-28 weeks’ gestation. All participants had at least one risk factor for hyperglycemia, and met the World Health Organization criteria for gestational diabetes. Women with preexisting diabetes or contraindicating comorbid medical conditions were excluded.

The study had three primary outcomes. The first was a composite of neonatal outcomes including birth before 37 weeks’ gestation, birth weight of 4,500 g or higher, birth trauma, neonatal respiratory distress, phototherapy, stillbirth or neonatal death, or shoulder dystocia.

The final sample included 748 women for adverse neonatal outcomes, 750 for pregnancy-related hypertension, and 492 for neonatal lean body mass. The mean age of the participants was 32 years; approximately one-third were white European and another third were South Asian. Overall baseline demographics were similar between the groups, and the initial oral glucose tolerance tests were performed at a mean of 15.6 weeks’ gestation.

Overall, 24.9% of women in the early treatment group experienced an adverse neonatal event vs. 30.5% of controls, for an adjusted risk difference of –5.6% and adjusted relative risk of 0.82.

Notably, in an exploratory subgroup analysis, respiratory distress occurred in 9.8% of infants born to women in the immediate treatment group vs. 17.0% of infants in the control group. “Neonatal respiratory distress was the main driver of the between-group difference observed for the first primary outcome,” the researchers wrote. A prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that the impact of an earlier intervention on adverse neonatal outcomes might be greater among women with a higher glycemic value and those whose oral glucose tolerance tests occurred at less than 14 weeks’ gestation, they noted. Stillbirths or neonatal deaths were similar and infrequent in both groups.

Pregnancy-related hypertension occurred in 10.6% of the immediate-treatment group and 9.9% of the controls group (adjusted risk difference, 0.7%). For the third outcome, the mean neonatal lean body mass was 2.86 g in the immediate-treatment group and 2.91 g for the controls (adjusted mean difference, −0.04 g).

No differences in serious adverse events related to either screening or treatment were noted between the groups.
 

Impact on neonatal outcomes merits further study

Dr. Simmons said that he was surprised by the study findings. “We thought if there was an effect, it would be small, but it isn’t,” he told this publication.

“If you combine the severe adverse outcomes, the perineal trauma and the reduction in days in NICU/special care unit, this is a significant impact on morbidity and likely on cost,” and researchers are currently examining data for cost-effectiveness, he said.

“We did not expect the likely large impact on reducing respiratory distress and perineal trauma,” he noted. “These findings have not been previously reported, perhaps because they were not looked for.” By contrast, “we thought here might be reductions in lower gestational age and cesarean delivery, but there was not,” he added.

The findings were limited by several factors including the nonstandardized approach to gestational diabetes treatment and the use of third-trimester treatment targets that had not been tested in earlier trimesters, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on women already at high risk for hyperglycemia; therefore, the results might not generalize to women not at risk, they wrote.

The current study represents a beginning of answers, with data suggesting that early treatment for gestational diabetes reduces severe adverse pregnancy outcomes, days in NICU/special care unit, and perineal trauma, likely from the first trimester, said Dr. Simmons. However, the findings must be interpreted with caution, as criteria that are too low “might lead to more small babies,” he said. “We look forward to working with others to translate these findings into practice,” he added.

Much more research is needed to answer the many questions prompted by the current study, including who did and did not have complications, Dr. Simmons told this publication. Other studies are needed to collect data on cost-effectiveness, as well as consumer views, especially “different perspectives from different parts of the globe,” he said. Although there is not enough evidence yet to draw conclusions about the role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in managing gestational diabetes, many studies are underway; “we look forward to the results,” of these studies, Dr. Simmons added.
 

Findings support early screening

Gestational diabetes is one of the most common medical complications of pregnancy, and accounts for more than 80% of diabetes-related diagnoses in pregnancy, said Emily Fay, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.

“Previous studies have found that women with gestational diabetes are at higher risk in their pregnancy, including higher chance of developing preeclampsia, higher chance of cesarean delivery, and higher risks for their baby, including risk of shoulder dystocia, birth trauma, and jaundice, and higher birth weights,” she said. “Fortunately, studies have also shown that treatment of gestational diabetes helps lower these risks,” she noted. Currently, patients undergo routine screening for gestational diabetes between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy, but some who have risk factors for gestational diabetes may have screening in the early part of pregnancy, said Dr. Fay.

The current findings were not surprising overall, said Dr. Fay, who was not involved in the study. “The study authors looked at a variety of outcomes including neonatal adverse outcomes, neonatal body weight, and pregnancy-related hypertension,” she said.

The researchers found that patients treated early had a lower rate of adverse neonatal outcomes, which was to be expected, Dr. Fay said. “They did not find a difference in neonatal body weight; this also was not surprising, as the women who were not in the early treatment group still received treatment at the time of diagnosis later in pregnancy, which likely helped normalize the weights,” she explained.

“My takeaway from this study is that we should continue to screen patients with risk factors for gestational diabetes early in pregnancy and treat them at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fay told this publication. However, barriers that may exist to early treatment involve access to care, including being able to see a provider early in pregnancy, she said. “The treatment for gestational diabetes includes dietary education with diet changes and checking blood sugars frequently. Access to nutrition education can be limited and access to healthy foods can be expensive and difficult to obtain,” she noted. “Checking blood sugars throughout the day can also be difficult for those who are busy or working and who may not have the ability to take time to do this,” she said. However, “these barriers may be overcome by health care reform that improves patient access to and coverage of pregnancy care, improved access and affordability of healthy foods, and employer flexibility to allow the time and space to check blood sugars if needed,” she added.

Looking ahead, the use of continuous glucose monitors in pregnancy is an expanding area of research, said Dr. Fay. “Patients can quickly view their blood sugar without the use of finger sticks, which may help overcome some of the barriers patients may have with using finger sticks,” she noted. “Continuous glucose monitors have been used for those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes with success, and we need to better understand if these can also be helpful in gestational diabetes,” she said. Dr. Fay and colleagues at the University of Washington are currently conducting an ongoing study to explore the use of CGM in gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Region Örebro Research Committee, the Medical Scientific Fund of the Mayor of Vienna, the South Western Sydney Local Health District Academic Unit, and a Western Sydney University Ainsworth Trust Grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Fay had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in 24.9% of women treated for gestational diabetes at less than 20 weeks’ gestation compared to 30.5% of controls treated later or not at all, based on data from nearly 800 women.

Screening and treatment for gestational diabetes are currently recommended at 24-28 weeks’ gestation, with earlier testing recommended for women at increased risk, but the potential benefits of earlier intervention remain debatable, wrote David Simmons, MD, of Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, Australia, and colleagues.

“Until now, there has been complete equipoise over whether to treat hyperglycemia below that of overt diabetes early in pregnancy,” Dr. Simmons said in an interview. The conflicting questions: “Would early treatment reduce the excess deposition of fat on the baby with all of its sequelae; but would early treatment reduce fuel supply to some babies at a critical time and lead to SGA [small for gestational age]?” Dr. Simmons noted.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Simmons and colleagues randomized 406 women aged 18 years and older with singleton pregnancies to immediate treatment for gestational diabetes. Another 396 women were randomized to a control group for deferred treatment or no treatment, based on results of an oral glucose tolerance test at 24-28 weeks’ gestation. All participants had at least one risk factor for hyperglycemia, and met the World Health Organization criteria for gestational diabetes. Women with preexisting diabetes or contraindicating comorbid medical conditions were excluded.

The study had three primary outcomes. The first was a composite of neonatal outcomes including birth before 37 weeks’ gestation, birth weight of 4,500 g or higher, birth trauma, neonatal respiratory distress, phototherapy, stillbirth or neonatal death, or shoulder dystocia.

The final sample included 748 women for adverse neonatal outcomes, 750 for pregnancy-related hypertension, and 492 for neonatal lean body mass. The mean age of the participants was 32 years; approximately one-third were white European and another third were South Asian. Overall baseline demographics were similar between the groups, and the initial oral glucose tolerance tests were performed at a mean of 15.6 weeks’ gestation.

Overall, 24.9% of women in the early treatment group experienced an adverse neonatal event vs. 30.5% of controls, for an adjusted risk difference of –5.6% and adjusted relative risk of 0.82.

Notably, in an exploratory subgroup analysis, respiratory distress occurred in 9.8% of infants born to women in the immediate treatment group vs. 17.0% of infants in the control group. “Neonatal respiratory distress was the main driver of the between-group difference observed for the first primary outcome,” the researchers wrote. A prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that the impact of an earlier intervention on adverse neonatal outcomes might be greater among women with a higher glycemic value and those whose oral glucose tolerance tests occurred at less than 14 weeks’ gestation, they noted. Stillbirths or neonatal deaths were similar and infrequent in both groups.

Pregnancy-related hypertension occurred in 10.6% of the immediate-treatment group and 9.9% of the controls group (adjusted risk difference, 0.7%). For the third outcome, the mean neonatal lean body mass was 2.86 g in the immediate-treatment group and 2.91 g for the controls (adjusted mean difference, −0.04 g).

No differences in serious adverse events related to either screening or treatment were noted between the groups.
 

Impact on neonatal outcomes merits further study

Dr. Simmons said that he was surprised by the study findings. “We thought if there was an effect, it would be small, but it isn’t,” he told this publication.

“If you combine the severe adverse outcomes, the perineal trauma and the reduction in days in NICU/special care unit, this is a significant impact on morbidity and likely on cost,” and researchers are currently examining data for cost-effectiveness, he said.

“We did not expect the likely large impact on reducing respiratory distress and perineal trauma,” he noted. “These findings have not been previously reported, perhaps because they were not looked for.” By contrast, “we thought here might be reductions in lower gestational age and cesarean delivery, but there was not,” he added.

The findings were limited by several factors including the nonstandardized approach to gestational diabetes treatment and the use of third-trimester treatment targets that had not been tested in earlier trimesters, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on women already at high risk for hyperglycemia; therefore, the results might not generalize to women not at risk, they wrote.

The current study represents a beginning of answers, with data suggesting that early treatment for gestational diabetes reduces severe adverse pregnancy outcomes, days in NICU/special care unit, and perineal trauma, likely from the first trimester, said Dr. Simmons. However, the findings must be interpreted with caution, as criteria that are too low “might lead to more small babies,” he said. “We look forward to working with others to translate these findings into practice,” he added.

Much more research is needed to answer the many questions prompted by the current study, including who did and did not have complications, Dr. Simmons told this publication. Other studies are needed to collect data on cost-effectiveness, as well as consumer views, especially “different perspectives from different parts of the globe,” he said. Although there is not enough evidence yet to draw conclusions about the role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in managing gestational diabetes, many studies are underway; “we look forward to the results,” of these studies, Dr. Simmons added.
 

Findings support early screening

Gestational diabetes is one of the most common medical complications of pregnancy, and accounts for more than 80% of diabetes-related diagnoses in pregnancy, said Emily Fay, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.

“Previous studies have found that women with gestational diabetes are at higher risk in their pregnancy, including higher chance of developing preeclampsia, higher chance of cesarean delivery, and higher risks for their baby, including risk of shoulder dystocia, birth trauma, and jaundice, and higher birth weights,” she said. “Fortunately, studies have also shown that treatment of gestational diabetes helps lower these risks,” she noted. Currently, patients undergo routine screening for gestational diabetes between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy, but some who have risk factors for gestational diabetes may have screening in the early part of pregnancy, said Dr. Fay.

The current findings were not surprising overall, said Dr. Fay, who was not involved in the study. “The study authors looked at a variety of outcomes including neonatal adverse outcomes, neonatal body weight, and pregnancy-related hypertension,” she said.

The researchers found that patients treated early had a lower rate of adverse neonatal outcomes, which was to be expected, Dr. Fay said. “They did not find a difference in neonatal body weight; this also was not surprising, as the women who were not in the early treatment group still received treatment at the time of diagnosis later in pregnancy, which likely helped normalize the weights,” she explained.

“My takeaway from this study is that we should continue to screen patients with risk factors for gestational diabetes early in pregnancy and treat them at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fay told this publication. However, barriers that may exist to early treatment involve access to care, including being able to see a provider early in pregnancy, she said. “The treatment for gestational diabetes includes dietary education with diet changes and checking blood sugars frequently. Access to nutrition education can be limited and access to healthy foods can be expensive and difficult to obtain,” she noted. “Checking blood sugars throughout the day can also be difficult for those who are busy or working and who may not have the ability to take time to do this,” she said. However, “these barriers may be overcome by health care reform that improves patient access to and coverage of pregnancy care, improved access and affordability of healthy foods, and employer flexibility to allow the time and space to check blood sugars if needed,” she added.

Looking ahead, the use of continuous glucose monitors in pregnancy is an expanding area of research, said Dr. Fay. “Patients can quickly view their blood sugar without the use of finger sticks, which may help overcome some of the barriers patients may have with using finger sticks,” she noted. “Continuous glucose monitors have been used for those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes with success, and we need to better understand if these can also be helpful in gestational diabetes,” she said. Dr. Fay and colleagues at the University of Washington are currently conducting an ongoing study to explore the use of CGM in gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Region Örebro Research Committee, the Medical Scientific Fund of the Mayor of Vienna, the South Western Sydney Local Health District Academic Unit, and a Western Sydney University Ainsworth Trust Grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Fay had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

When people ask Paul Offit, MD, what worries him the most about the COVID-19 pandemic, he names two concerns. “One is the lack of socialization and education that came from keeping kids out of school for so long,” Dr. Offit said in a recent interview. “And I think vaccines have suffered.”

Dr. Offit is director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He has watched with alarm as the American public appears to be losing faith in the lifesaving vaccines the public health community has worked hard to promote. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the proportion of kids entering kindergarten who have received state-required vaccines dipped to 94% in the 2020-2021 school year – a full point less than the year before the pandemic – then dropped by another percentage point, to 93%, the following year.

Although a couple of percentage points may sound trivial, were only 93% of kindergarteners to receive the vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), approximately 250,000 vulnerable 5-year-olds could spark the next big outbreak, such as the recent measles outbreaks in Ohio and Minnesota.

Dr. Offit is one of many public health officials and clinicians who are working to reverse the concerning trends in pediatric vaccinations. Their efforts combine conventional approaches, such as community outreach, with newer strategies, including using social media and even lending a sympathetic ear to parents voicing anti-science imaginings.

“I just don’t want to see an outbreak of something that we could have avoided because we were not protected enough,” Judith Shlay, MD, associate director of the Public Health Institute at Denver Health, said.
 

Official stumbles in part to blame

Disruptions in health care from the COVID-19 pandemic certainly played a role in the decline. Parents were afraid to expose their children to other sick kids, providers shifted to a telehealth model, and routine preventive care was difficult to access.

But Dr. Offit also blamed erosion of trust on mistakes made by government and public health institutions for the alarming trend. “I think that health care professionals have lost some level of trust in the Food and Drug Administration and CDC.”

He cited as an example poor messaging during a large outbreak in Massachusetts in summer 2021, when the CDC published a report that highlighted the high proportion of COVID-19 cases among vaccinated people. Health officials called those cases “breakthrough” infections, although most were mild or asymptomatic.

Dr. Offit said the CDC should have focused the message instead on the low rate (1%) of hospitalizations and the low number of deaths from the infections. Instead, they had to walk back their promise that vaccinated people didn’t need to wear masks. At other times, the Biden administration pressured public health officials by promising to make booster shots available to the American public when the FDA and CDC felt they lacked evidence to recommend the injections.

Rupali Limaye, PhD, an associate professor of international health at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, studies vaccine behavior and decision-making. She would go a step further in characterizing the roots of worsening vaccine hesitancy.

“In the last 20 years, we’ve seen there’s less and less trust in health care providers in general,” Dr. Limaye said. “More people are turning to their social networks or social contacts for that kind of information.” In the maelstrom of the COVID-19 pandemic, digital social networks facilitated the spread of misinformation about COVID-19 faster than scientists could unravel the mysteries of the disease.

“There’s always been this underlying hesitancy for some people about vaccines,” Dr. Shlay said. But she has noticed more resistance to the COVID-19 vaccine from parents nervous about the new mRNA technology. “There was a lot of politicization of the vaccine, even though the mRNA vaccine technology has been around for a long time,” she said.
 

Multipronged approaches

Dr. Shlay is committed to restoring childhood vaccination uptake to prepandemic levels now that clinics are open again. To do so, she is relying on a combination of quality improvement strategies and outreach to undervaccinated populations.

Denver Health, for instance, offers vaccinations at any inpatient or outpatient visit – not just well-child visits – with the help of alerts built into their electronic health records that notify clinicians if a patient is due for a vaccine.

COVID-19 revealed marked health inequities in underserved communities as Black, Hispanic, and people from other minority communities experienced higher rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths, compared with White people. The Public Health Institute, which is part of Denver Health, has responded with vaccine outreach teams that go to schools, shelters, churches, and community-based organizations to vaccinate children. They focus their efforts on areas where immunization rates are low. Health centers in schools throughout Colorado vaccinate students, and the Public Health Institute partners with Denver-area public schools to provide vaccines to students in schools that don’t have such centers. (They also provide dental care and behavioral health services.)

But it is unlikely that restoring clinic operations and making vaccines more accessible will fill the gap. After 3 years of fear and mistrust, parents are still nervous about routine shots. To help clinicians facilitate conversations about vaccination, Denver Health trains providers in communication techniques using motivational interviewing (MI), a collaborative goal-oriented approach that encourages changes in health behaviors.

Dr. Shlay, who stressed the value of persistence, advised, “Through motivational interviewing, discussing things, talking about it, you can actually address most of the concerns.”
 

Giving parents a boost in the right direction

That spirit drives the work of Boost Oregon, a parent-led nonprofit organization founded in 2015 that helps parents make science-based decisions for themselves and their families. Even before the pandemic, primary care providers needed better strategies for addressing parents who had concerns about vaccines and found themselves failing in the effort while trying to see 20 patients a day.

For families that have questions about vaccines, Boost Oregon holds community meetings in which parents meet with clinicians, share their concerns with other parents, and get answers to their questions in a nonjudgmental way. The 1- to 2-hour sessions enable deeper discussions of the issues than many clinicians can manage in a 20-minute patient visit.

Boost Oregon also trains providers in communication techniques using MI. Ryan Hassan, MD, a pediatrician in private practice who serves as the medical director for the organization, has made the approach an integral part of his day. A key realization for him about the use of MI is that if providers want to build trust with parents, they need to accept that their role is not simply to educate but also to listen.

“Even if it’s the wildest conspiracy theory I’ve ever heard, that is my opportunity to show them that I’m listening and to empathize,” Dr. Hassan said.

His next step, a central tenet of MI, is to make reflective statements that summarize the parent’s concerns, demonstrate empathy, and help him get to the heart of their concerns. He then tailors his message to their issues.

Dr. Hassan tells people who are learning the technique to acknowledge that patients have the autonomy to make their own decisions. Coercing them into a decision is unhelpful and potentially counterproductive. “You can’t change anyone else’s mind,” he said. “You have to help them change their own mind.”

Dr. Limaye reinforced that message. Overwhelmed by conflicting messages on the internet, people are just trying to find answers. She trains providers not to dismiss patients’ concerns, because dismissal erodes trust.

“When you’re dealing with misinformation and conspiracy, to me, one thing to keep in mind is that it’s the long game,” Dr. Limaye said, “You’re not going to be able to sway them in one conversation.”

Can the powers of social media be harnessed for pro-vaccine messaging? Dr. Limaye has studied social media strategies to promote vaccine acceptance and has identified several elements that can be useful for swaying opinions about vaccine.

One is the messenger – as people trust their physicians less, “it’s important to find influencers that people might trust to actually spread a message,” she said. Another factor is that as society has become more polarized, interaction with the leadership of groups that hold influence has become key. To promote vaccine acceptance, for example, leaders of moms’ groups on Facebook could be equipped with evidence-based information.

“It’s important for us to reach out and engage with those that are leaders in those groups, because they kind of hold the power,” Dr. Limaye said.

Framing the message is critical. Dr. Limaye has found that personal narratives can be persuasive and that to influence vaccine behavior, it is necessary to tailor the approach to the specific audience. Danish researchers, for example, in 2017 launched a campaign to increase uptake of HPV vaccinations among teenagers. The researchers provided facts about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine, cited posts by clinicians about the importance of immunization against the virus, and relayed personal stories, such as one about a father who chose to vaccinate his daughter and another about a blogger’s encounter with a woman with cervical cancer. The researchers found that the highest engagement rates were achieved through personal content and that such content generated the highest proportion of positive comments.

According to Dr. Limaye, to change behavior, social media messaging must address the issues of risk perception and self-efficacy. For risk perception regarding vaccines, a successful message needs to address the parents’ questions about whether their child is at risk for catching a disease, such as measles or pertussis, and if they are, whether the child will wind up in the hospital.

Self-efficacy is the belief that one can accomplish a task. An effective message would provide information on where to find free or low-cost vaccines and would identify locations that are easy to reach and that have expanded hours for working parents, Dr. Limaye said.

What’s the best approach for boosting vaccination rates in the post-pandemic era? In the 1850s, Massachusetts enacted the first vaccine mandate in the United States to prevent smallpox, and by the 1900s, similar laws had been passed in almost half of states. But recent polls suggest that support for vaccine mandates is dwindling. In a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation last fall, 71% of adults said that healthy children should be required to be vaccinated against measles before entering school, which was down from 82% in a similar poll in 2019.

So perhaps a better approach for promoting vaccine confidence in the 21st century would involve wider use of MI by clinicians and more focus by public health agencies taking advantage of the potential power of social media. As Dr. Offit put it, “I think trust is the key thing.”

Dr. Offit, Dr. Limaye, Dr. Shlay, and Dr. Hassan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

When people ask Paul Offit, MD, what worries him the most about the COVID-19 pandemic, he names two concerns. “One is the lack of socialization and education that came from keeping kids out of school for so long,” Dr. Offit said in a recent interview. “And I think vaccines have suffered.”

Dr. Offit is director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He has watched with alarm as the American public appears to be losing faith in the lifesaving vaccines the public health community has worked hard to promote. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the proportion of kids entering kindergarten who have received state-required vaccines dipped to 94% in the 2020-2021 school year – a full point less than the year before the pandemic – then dropped by another percentage point, to 93%, the following year.

Although a couple of percentage points may sound trivial, were only 93% of kindergarteners to receive the vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), approximately 250,000 vulnerable 5-year-olds could spark the next big outbreak, such as the recent measles outbreaks in Ohio and Minnesota.

Dr. Offit is one of many public health officials and clinicians who are working to reverse the concerning trends in pediatric vaccinations. Their efforts combine conventional approaches, such as community outreach, with newer strategies, including using social media and even lending a sympathetic ear to parents voicing anti-science imaginings.

“I just don’t want to see an outbreak of something that we could have avoided because we were not protected enough,” Judith Shlay, MD, associate director of the Public Health Institute at Denver Health, said.
 

Official stumbles in part to blame

Disruptions in health care from the COVID-19 pandemic certainly played a role in the decline. Parents were afraid to expose their children to other sick kids, providers shifted to a telehealth model, and routine preventive care was difficult to access.

But Dr. Offit also blamed erosion of trust on mistakes made by government and public health institutions for the alarming trend. “I think that health care professionals have lost some level of trust in the Food and Drug Administration and CDC.”

He cited as an example poor messaging during a large outbreak in Massachusetts in summer 2021, when the CDC published a report that highlighted the high proportion of COVID-19 cases among vaccinated people. Health officials called those cases “breakthrough” infections, although most were mild or asymptomatic.

Dr. Offit said the CDC should have focused the message instead on the low rate (1%) of hospitalizations and the low number of deaths from the infections. Instead, they had to walk back their promise that vaccinated people didn’t need to wear masks. At other times, the Biden administration pressured public health officials by promising to make booster shots available to the American public when the FDA and CDC felt they lacked evidence to recommend the injections.

Rupali Limaye, PhD, an associate professor of international health at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, studies vaccine behavior and decision-making. She would go a step further in characterizing the roots of worsening vaccine hesitancy.

“In the last 20 years, we’ve seen there’s less and less trust in health care providers in general,” Dr. Limaye said. “More people are turning to their social networks or social contacts for that kind of information.” In the maelstrom of the COVID-19 pandemic, digital social networks facilitated the spread of misinformation about COVID-19 faster than scientists could unravel the mysteries of the disease.

“There’s always been this underlying hesitancy for some people about vaccines,” Dr. Shlay said. But she has noticed more resistance to the COVID-19 vaccine from parents nervous about the new mRNA technology. “There was a lot of politicization of the vaccine, even though the mRNA vaccine technology has been around for a long time,” she said.
 

Multipronged approaches

Dr. Shlay is committed to restoring childhood vaccination uptake to prepandemic levels now that clinics are open again. To do so, she is relying on a combination of quality improvement strategies and outreach to undervaccinated populations.

Denver Health, for instance, offers vaccinations at any inpatient or outpatient visit – not just well-child visits – with the help of alerts built into their electronic health records that notify clinicians if a patient is due for a vaccine.

COVID-19 revealed marked health inequities in underserved communities as Black, Hispanic, and people from other minority communities experienced higher rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths, compared with White people. The Public Health Institute, which is part of Denver Health, has responded with vaccine outreach teams that go to schools, shelters, churches, and community-based organizations to vaccinate children. They focus their efforts on areas where immunization rates are low. Health centers in schools throughout Colorado vaccinate students, and the Public Health Institute partners with Denver-area public schools to provide vaccines to students in schools that don’t have such centers. (They also provide dental care and behavioral health services.)

But it is unlikely that restoring clinic operations and making vaccines more accessible will fill the gap. After 3 years of fear and mistrust, parents are still nervous about routine shots. To help clinicians facilitate conversations about vaccination, Denver Health trains providers in communication techniques using motivational interviewing (MI), a collaborative goal-oriented approach that encourages changes in health behaviors.

Dr. Shlay, who stressed the value of persistence, advised, “Through motivational interviewing, discussing things, talking about it, you can actually address most of the concerns.”
 

Giving parents a boost in the right direction

That spirit drives the work of Boost Oregon, a parent-led nonprofit organization founded in 2015 that helps parents make science-based decisions for themselves and their families. Even before the pandemic, primary care providers needed better strategies for addressing parents who had concerns about vaccines and found themselves failing in the effort while trying to see 20 patients a day.

For families that have questions about vaccines, Boost Oregon holds community meetings in which parents meet with clinicians, share their concerns with other parents, and get answers to their questions in a nonjudgmental way. The 1- to 2-hour sessions enable deeper discussions of the issues than many clinicians can manage in a 20-minute patient visit.

Boost Oregon also trains providers in communication techniques using MI. Ryan Hassan, MD, a pediatrician in private practice who serves as the medical director for the organization, has made the approach an integral part of his day. A key realization for him about the use of MI is that if providers want to build trust with parents, they need to accept that their role is not simply to educate but also to listen.

“Even if it’s the wildest conspiracy theory I’ve ever heard, that is my opportunity to show them that I’m listening and to empathize,” Dr. Hassan said.

His next step, a central tenet of MI, is to make reflective statements that summarize the parent’s concerns, demonstrate empathy, and help him get to the heart of their concerns. He then tailors his message to their issues.

Dr. Hassan tells people who are learning the technique to acknowledge that patients have the autonomy to make their own decisions. Coercing them into a decision is unhelpful and potentially counterproductive. “You can’t change anyone else’s mind,” he said. “You have to help them change their own mind.”

Dr. Limaye reinforced that message. Overwhelmed by conflicting messages on the internet, people are just trying to find answers. She trains providers not to dismiss patients’ concerns, because dismissal erodes trust.

“When you’re dealing with misinformation and conspiracy, to me, one thing to keep in mind is that it’s the long game,” Dr. Limaye said, “You’re not going to be able to sway them in one conversation.”

Can the powers of social media be harnessed for pro-vaccine messaging? Dr. Limaye has studied social media strategies to promote vaccine acceptance and has identified several elements that can be useful for swaying opinions about vaccine.

One is the messenger – as people trust their physicians less, “it’s important to find influencers that people might trust to actually spread a message,” she said. Another factor is that as society has become more polarized, interaction with the leadership of groups that hold influence has become key. To promote vaccine acceptance, for example, leaders of moms’ groups on Facebook could be equipped with evidence-based information.

“It’s important for us to reach out and engage with those that are leaders in those groups, because they kind of hold the power,” Dr. Limaye said.

Framing the message is critical. Dr. Limaye has found that personal narratives can be persuasive and that to influence vaccine behavior, it is necessary to tailor the approach to the specific audience. Danish researchers, for example, in 2017 launched a campaign to increase uptake of HPV vaccinations among teenagers. The researchers provided facts about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine, cited posts by clinicians about the importance of immunization against the virus, and relayed personal stories, such as one about a father who chose to vaccinate his daughter and another about a blogger’s encounter with a woman with cervical cancer. The researchers found that the highest engagement rates were achieved through personal content and that such content generated the highest proportion of positive comments.

According to Dr. Limaye, to change behavior, social media messaging must address the issues of risk perception and self-efficacy. For risk perception regarding vaccines, a successful message needs to address the parents’ questions about whether their child is at risk for catching a disease, such as measles or pertussis, and if they are, whether the child will wind up in the hospital.

Self-efficacy is the belief that one can accomplish a task. An effective message would provide information on where to find free or low-cost vaccines and would identify locations that are easy to reach and that have expanded hours for working parents, Dr. Limaye said.

What’s the best approach for boosting vaccination rates in the post-pandemic era? In the 1850s, Massachusetts enacted the first vaccine mandate in the United States to prevent smallpox, and by the 1900s, similar laws had been passed in almost half of states. But recent polls suggest that support for vaccine mandates is dwindling. In a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation last fall, 71% of adults said that healthy children should be required to be vaccinated against measles before entering school, which was down from 82% in a similar poll in 2019.

So perhaps a better approach for promoting vaccine confidence in the 21st century would involve wider use of MI by clinicians and more focus by public health agencies taking advantage of the potential power of social media. As Dr. Offit put it, “I think trust is the key thing.”

Dr. Offit, Dr. Limaye, Dr. Shlay, and Dr. Hassan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

When people ask Paul Offit, MD, what worries him the most about the COVID-19 pandemic, he names two concerns. “One is the lack of socialization and education that came from keeping kids out of school for so long,” Dr. Offit said in a recent interview. “And I think vaccines have suffered.”

Dr. Offit is director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He has watched with alarm as the American public appears to be losing faith in the lifesaving vaccines the public health community has worked hard to promote. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the proportion of kids entering kindergarten who have received state-required vaccines dipped to 94% in the 2020-2021 school year – a full point less than the year before the pandemic – then dropped by another percentage point, to 93%, the following year.

Although a couple of percentage points may sound trivial, were only 93% of kindergarteners to receive the vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), approximately 250,000 vulnerable 5-year-olds could spark the next big outbreak, such as the recent measles outbreaks in Ohio and Minnesota.

Dr. Offit is one of many public health officials and clinicians who are working to reverse the concerning trends in pediatric vaccinations. Their efforts combine conventional approaches, such as community outreach, with newer strategies, including using social media and even lending a sympathetic ear to parents voicing anti-science imaginings.

“I just don’t want to see an outbreak of something that we could have avoided because we were not protected enough,” Judith Shlay, MD, associate director of the Public Health Institute at Denver Health, said.
 

Official stumbles in part to blame

Disruptions in health care from the COVID-19 pandemic certainly played a role in the decline. Parents were afraid to expose their children to other sick kids, providers shifted to a telehealth model, and routine preventive care was difficult to access.

But Dr. Offit also blamed erosion of trust on mistakes made by government and public health institutions for the alarming trend. “I think that health care professionals have lost some level of trust in the Food and Drug Administration and CDC.”

He cited as an example poor messaging during a large outbreak in Massachusetts in summer 2021, when the CDC published a report that highlighted the high proportion of COVID-19 cases among vaccinated people. Health officials called those cases “breakthrough” infections, although most were mild or asymptomatic.

Dr. Offit said the CDC should have focused the message instead on the low rate (1%) of hospitalizations and the low number of deaths from the infections. Instead, they had to walk back their promise that vaccinated people didn’t need to wear masks. At other times, the Biden administration pressured public health officials by promising to make booster shots available to the American public when the FDA and CDC felt they lacked evidence to recommend the injections.

Rupali Limaye, PhD, an associate professor of international health at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, studies vaccine behavior and decision-making. She would go a step further in characterizing the roots of worsening vaccine hesitancy.

“In the last 20 years, we’ve seen there’s less and less trust in health care providers in general,” Dr. Limaye said. “More people are turning to their social networks or social contacts for that kind of information.” In the maelstrom of the COVID-19 pandemic, digital social networks facilitated the spread of misinformation about COVID-19 faster than scientists could unravel the mysteries of the disease.

“There’s always been this underlying hesitancy for some people about vaccines,” Dr. Shlay said. But she has noticed more resistance to the COVID-19 vaccine from parents nervous about the new mRNA technology. “There was a lot of politicization of the vaccine, even though the mRNA vaccine technology has been around for a long time,” she said.
 

Multipronged approaches

Dr. Shlay is committed to restoring childhood vaccination uptake to prepandemic levels now that clinics are open again. To do so, she is relying on a combination of quality improvement strategies and outreach to undervaccinated populations.

Denver Health, for instance, offers vaccinations at any inpatient or outpatient visit – not just well-child visits – with the help of alerts built into their electronic health records that notify clinicians if a patient is due for a vaccine.

COVID-19 revealed marked health inequities in underserved communities as Black, Hispanic, and people from other minority communities experienced higher rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths, compared with White people. The Public Health Institute, which is part of Denver Health, has responded with vaccine outreach teams that go to schools, shelters, churches, and community-based organizations to vaccinate children. They focus their efforts on areas where immunization rates are low. Health centers in schools throughout Colorado vaccinate students, and the Public Health Institute partners with Denver-area public schools to provide vaccines to students in schools that don’t have such centers. (They also provide dental care and behavioral health services.)

But it is unlikely that restoring clinic operations and making vaccines more accessible will fill the gap. After 3 years of fear and mistrust, parents are still nervous about routine shots. To help clinicians facilitate conversations about vaccination, Denver Health trains providers in communication techniques using motivational interviewing (MI), a collaborative goal-oriented approach that encourages changes in health behaviors.

Dr. Shlay, who stressed the value of persistence, advised, “Through motivational interviewing, discussing things, talking about it, you can actually address most of the concerns.”
 

Giving parents a boost in the right direction

That spirit drives the work of Boost Oregon, a parent-led nonprofit organization founded in 2015 that helps parents make science-based decisions for themselves and their families. Even before the pandemic, primary care providers needed better strategies for addressing parents who had concerns about vaccines and found themselves failing in the effort while trying to see 20 patients a day.

For families that have questions about vaccines, Boost Oregon holds community meetings in which parents meet with clinicians, share their concerns with other parents, and get answers to their questions in a nonjudgmental way. The 1- to 2-hour sessions enable deeper discussions of the issues than many clinicians can manage in a 20-minute patient visit.

Boost Oregon also trains providers in communication techniques using MI. Ryan Hassan, MD, a pediatrician in private practice who serves as the medical director for the organization, has made the approach an integral part of his day. A key realization for him about the use of MI is that if providers want to build trust with parents, they need to accept that their role is not simply to educate but also to listen.

“Even if it’s the wildest conspiracy theory I’ve ever heard, that is my opportunity to show them that I’m listening and to empathize,” Dr. Hassan said.

His next step, a central tenet of MI, is to make reflective statements that summarize the parent’s concerns, demonstrate empathy, and help him get to the heart of their concerns. He then tailors his message to their issues.

Dr. Hassan tells people who are learning the technique to acknowledge that patients have the autonomy to make their own decisions. Coercing them into a decision is unhelpful and potentially counterproductive. “You can’t change anyone else’s mind,” he said. “You have to help them change their own mind.”

Dr. Limaye reinforced that message. Overwhelmed by conflicting messages on the internet, people are just trying to find answers. She trains providers not to dismiss patients’ concerns, because dismissal erodes trust.

“When you’re dealing with misinformation and conspiracy, to me, one thing to keep in mind is that it’s the long game,” Dr. Limaye said, “You’re not going to be able to sway them in one conversation.”

Can the powers of social media be harnessed for pro-vaccine messaging? Dr. Limaye has studied social media strategies to promote vaccine acceptance and has identified several elements that can be useful for swaying opinions about vaccine.

One is the messenger – as people trust their physicians less, “it’s important to find influencers that people might trust to actually spread a message,” she said. Another factor is that as society has become more polarized, interaction with the leadership of groups that hold influence has become key. To promote vaccine acceptance, for example, leaders of moms’ groups on Facebook could be equipped with evidence-based information.

“It’s important for us to reach out and engage with those that are leaders in those groups, because they kind of hold the power,” Dr. Limaye said.

Framing the message is critical. Dr. Limaye has found that personal narratives can be persuasive and that to influence vaccine behavior, it is necessary to tailor the approach to the specific audience. Danish researchers, for example, in 2017 launched a campaign to increase uptake of HPV vaccinations among teenagers. The researchers provided facts about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine, cited posts by clinicians about the importance of immunization against the virus, and relayed personal stories, such as one about a father who chose to vaccinate his daughter and another about a blogger’s encounter with a woman with cervical cancer. The researchers found that the highest engagement rates were achieved through personal content and that such content generated the highest proportion of positive comments.

According to Dr. Limaye, to change behavior, social media messaging must address the issues of risk perception and self-efficacy. For risk perception regarding vaccines, a successful message needs to address the parents’ questions about whether their child is at risk for catching a disease, such as measles or pertussis, and if they are, whether the child will wind up in the hospital.

Self-efficacy is the belief that one can accomplish a task. An effective message would provide information on where to find free or low-cost vaccines and would identify locations that are easy to reach and that have expanded hours for working parents, Dr. Limaye said.

What’s the best approach for boosting vaccination rates in the post-pandemic era? In the 1850s, Massachusetts enacted the first vaccine mandate in the United States to prevent smallpox, and by the 1900s, similar laws had been passed in almost half of states. But recent polls suggest that support for vaccine mandates is dwindling. In a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation last fall, 71% of adults said that healthy children should be required to be vaccinated against measles before entering school, which was down from 82% in a similar poll in 2019.

So perhaps a better approach for promoting vaccine confidence in the 21st century would involve wider use of MI by clinicians and more focus by public health agencies taking advantage of the potential power of social media. As Dr. Offit put it, “I think trust is the key thing.”

Dr. Offit, Dr. Limaye, Dr. Shlay, and Dr. Hassan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pediatricians may have a new aid to better predict peanut allergies among infants with atopic dermatitis.

Researchers have developed a scorecard to help pediatricians identify and assess the severity of atopic dermatitis in infants of various skin tones and to then predict risk of allergies to peanuts. Their study of the implementation of the scorecard was presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

Infants with atopic dermatitis or eczema are six times more likely to have an egg allergy and eleven times more likely to have a peanut allergy at age 12 months than are infants without atopic dermatitis.

The scorecard reflects recent directives from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to help combat the public health problem.

“When the NIAID prevention of peanut allergy guidelines first came out, it asked pediatricians to serve as frontline practitioners in implementing them by identifying children at risk for peanut allergy and guiding families on what to do next,” said Waheeda Samady, MD, professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago. “The impetus for the study was to further support pediatricians in this role.”

Although pediatricians are trained to identify and even treat mild to moderate cases of atopic dermatitis, little emphasis has gone to categorizing the condition on the basis of severity and to correlating peanut allergy risk.

The predictive scorecard captures 14 images from one infant of mixed race, two White infants, two Black infants, and two Hispanic infants.

To create the card, two in-house pediatric dermatologists assessed 58 images from 13 children and categorized images from 0 (no signs of atopic dermatitis) to 4 (severe signs of atopic dermatitis). After a first pass on categorization, the doctors agreed on 84% of images.

Of 189 pediatricians who used the card, fewer than half reported that they “sometimes,” “very often,” or “always” used the scorecard for atopic dermatitis evaluation. A little fewer than three-quarters reported that their ability to diagnose and categorize atopic dermatitis improved.

“Severity staging of atopic dermatitis is not something that the general pediatrician necessarily performs on a day-to-day basis,” said Kawaljit Brar, MD, professor of pediatrics in the division of allergy and immunology at Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital in New York.

Dr. Brar explained that children who are identified as being at high risk are often referred to specialists such as her, who then perform allergy screenings and can determine whether introduction of food at home is safe or whether office feedings supervised by an allergist are necessary. Researchers have found that early introduction to peanuts for children with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis could prevent peanut allergy.

“This represents a wonderful initiative to educate pediatricians so that they understand which patients require screening for peanut allergy and which patients don’t and can just get introduced to peanuts at home,” Dr. Brar said.

The atopic dermatitis scorecard reflects a growing recognition that varying skin tones show levels of severity incongruously.

“Many of us in clinical practice have recognized that our education has not always been inclusive of patients with varying skin tones,” Dr. Samady said. “When we looked for photos of patients with different skin tones, we simply could not find any that we thought were appropriate. So we decided to take some ourselves, and we’re currently continuing to take photos in order to improve the scorecard we currently have.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Health and Food Allergy Research and Education. Dr. Samady and Dr. Brar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pediatricians may have a new aid to better predict peanut allergies among infants with atopic dermatitis.

Researchers have developed a scorecard to help pediatricians identify and assess the severity of atopic dermatitis in infants of various skin tones and to then predict risk of allergies to peanuts. Their study of the implementation of the scorecard was presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

Infants with atopic dermatitis or eczema are six times more likely to have an egg allergy and eleven times more likely to have a peanut allergy at age 12 months than are infants without atopic dermatitis.

The scorecard reflects recent directives from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to help combat the public health problem.

“When the NIAID prevention of peanut allergy guidelines first came out, it asked pediatricians to serve as frontline practitioners in implementing them by identifying children at risk for peanut allergy and guiding families on what to do next,” said Waheeda Samady, MD, professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago. “The impetus for the study was to further support pediatricians in this role.”

Although pediatricians are trained to identify and even treat mild to moderate cases of atopic dermatitis, little emphasis has gone to categorizing the condition on the basis of severity and to correlating peanut allergy risk.

The predictive scorecard captures 14 images from one infant of mixed race, two White infants, two Black infants, and two Hispanic infants.

To create the card, two in-house pediatric dermatologists assessed 58 images from 13 children and categorized images from 0 (no signs of atopic dermatitis) to 4 (severe signs of atopic dermatitis). After a first pass on categorization, the doctors agreed on 84% of images.

Of 189 pediatricians who used the card, fewer than half reported that they “sometimes,” “very often,” or “always” used the scorecard for atopic dermatitis evaluation. A little fewer than three-quarters reported that their ability to diagnose and categorize atopic dermatitis improved.

“Severity staging of atopic dermatitis is not something that the general pediatrician necessarily performs on a day-to-day basis,” said Kawaljit Brar, MD, professor of pediatrics in the division of allergy and immunology at Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital in New York.

Dr. Brar explained that children who are identified as being at high risk are often referred to specialists such as her, who then perform allergy screenings and can determine whether introduction of food at home is safe or whether office feedings supervised by an allergist are necessary. Researchers have found that early introduction to peanuts for children with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis could prevent peanut allergy.

“This represents a wonderful initiative to educate pediatricians so that they understand which patients require screening for peanut allergy and which patients don’t and can just get introduced to peanuts at home,” Dr. Brar said.

The atopic dermatitis scorecard reflects a growing recognition that varying skin tones show levels of severity incongruously.

“Many of us in clinical practice have recognized that our education has not always been inclusive of patients with varying skin tones,” Dr. Samady said. “When we looked for photos of patients with different skin tones, we simply could not find any that we thought were appropriate. So we decided to take some ourselves, and we’re currently continuing to take photos in order to improve the scorecard we currently have.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Health and Food Allergy Research and Education. Dr. Samady and Dr. Brar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pediatricians may have a new aid to better predict peanut allergies among infants with atopic dermatitis.

Researchers have developed a scorecard to help pediatricians identify and assess the severity of atopic dermatitis in infants of various skin tones and to then predict risk of allergies to peanuts. Their study of the implementation of the scorecard was presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

Infants with atopic dermatitis or eczema are six times more likely to have an egg allergy and eleven times more likely to have a peanut allergy at age 12 months than are infants without atopic dermatitis.

The scorecard reflects recent directives from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to help combat the public health problem.

“When the NIAID prevention of peanut allergy guidelines first came out, it asked pediatricians to serve as frontline practitioners in implementing them by identifying children at risk for peanut allergy and guiding families on what to do next,” said Waheeda Samady, MD, professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago. “The impetus for the study was to further support pediatricians in this role.”

Although pediatricians are trained to identify and even treat mild to moderate cases of atopic dermatitis, little emphasis has gone to categorizing the condition on the basis of severity and to correlating peanut allergy risk.

The predictive scorecard captures 14 images from one infant of mixed race, two White infants, two Black infants, and two Hispanic infants.

To create the card, two in-house pediatric dermatologists assessed 58 images from 13 children and categorized images from 0 (no signs of atopic dermatitis) to 4 (severe signs of atopic dermatitis). After a first pass on categorization, the doctors agreed on 84% of images.

Of 189 pediatricians who used the card, fewer than half reported that they “sometimes,” “very often,” or “always” used the scorecard for atopic dermatitis evaluation. A little fewer than three-quarters reported that their ability to diagnose and categorize atopic dermatitis improved.

“Severity staging of atopic dermatitis is not something that the general pediatrician necessarily performs on a day-to-day basis,” said Kawaljit Brar, MD, professor of pediatrics in the division of allergy and immunology at Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital in New York.

Dr. Brar explained that children who are identified as being at high risk are often referred to specialists such as her, who then perform allergy screenings and can determine whether introduction of food at home is safe or whether office feedings supervised by an allergist are necessary. Researchers have found that early introduction to peanuts for children with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis could prevent peanut allergy.

“This represents a wonderful initiative to educate pediatricians so that they understand which patients require screening for peanut allergy and which patients don’t and can just get introduced to peanuts at home,” Dr. Brar said.

The atopic dermatitis scorecard reflects a growing recognition that varying skin tones show levels of severity incongruously.

“Many of us in clinical practice have recognized that our education has not always been inclusive of patients with varying skin tones,” Dr. Samady said. “When we looked for photos of patients with different skin tones, we simply could not find any that we thought were appropriate. So we decided to take some ourselves, and we’re currently continuing to take photos in order to improve the scorecard we currently have.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Health and Food Allergy Research and Education. Dr. Samady and Dr. Brar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

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

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

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

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

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

As the cost of malpractice insurance continues to increase in many states, physicians in private practice may want to take advantage of discounts insurers offer to reduce premiums.

Getting a better deal might simply mean taking advantage of incentives and discounts your insurer may already offer. These include claims-free, new-to-practice, and working part-time discounts.

However, if you decide to shop around, keep in mind that discounts are just one factor that can affect your premium price – insurers look at your specialty, location, and claims history.

One of the most common ways physicians can earn discounts is by participating in risk management programs. With this type of program, physicians evaluate elements of their practice and documentation practices and identify areas that might leave them at risk for a lawsuit. While they save money, physician risk management programs also are designed to reduce malpractice claims, which ultimately minimizes the potential for bigger financial losses, insurance experts say.

“It’s a win-win situation when liability insurers and physicians work together to minimize risk, and it’s a win for patients,” said Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation.

Doctors in private practice or employed by small hospitals that are not self-insured can qualify for these discounts, said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants.

“I do a lot of work with medical malpractice companies trying to find clients policies. All the carriers are transparent about what physicians have to do to lower their premiums. Physicians can receive the discounts if they follow through and meet the insurer’s requirements,” said Mr. Zetter.

State insurance departments regulate medical malpractice insurance, including the premium credits insurers offer. Most states cap discounts at 25%, but some go as high as 70%, according to The Doctors Company, a national physician-owned medical malpractice insurer.

Insurers typically offer doctors several ways to earn discounts. The size of the discount also can depend on whether a doctor is new to a practice, remains claims free, or takes risk management courses.

In addition to the premium discount, some online risk management classes and webinars are eligible for CME credits.

“The credits can add up and they can be used for recertification or relicensure,” said Susan Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company.

Here are five ways you may qualify for discounts with your insurer.

1. Make use of discounts available to new doctors

Doctors can earn hefty discounts on their premiums when they are no longer interns or residents and start practicing medicine. The Doctors Company usually gives a 50% discount on member premiums the first year they’re in practice and a 25% discount credit in their second year. The discounts end after that.  

Other insurance carriers offer similar discounts to doctors starting to practice medicine. The deepest one is offered in the first year (at least 50%) and a smaller one (20%-25%) the second year, according to medical malpractice brokers.

“The new-to-practice discount is based solely on when the physician left their formal training to begin their practice for the first time; it is not based on claim-free history,” explained Mr. Zetter.

This is a very common discount used by different insurer carriers, said Dr. Price. “New physicians don’t have the same amount of risk of a lawsuit when they’re starting out. It’s unlikely they will have a claim and most liability actions have a 2-year time limit from the date of injury to be filed.”

2. Take advantage of being claims free

If you’ve been claims free for at least a few years, you may be eligible for a large discount.

“Doctors without claims are a better risk. Once a doctor has one claim, they’re likely to have a second, which the research shows,” said Mr. Zetter.

The most common credit The Doctors Company offers is 3 years of being claim free – this earns doctors up to 25%, he said. Mr. Zetter explained that the criteria and size of The Doctors Company credit may depend on the state where physicians practice.

“We allowed insurance carriers that we acquired to continue with their own claim-free discount program such as Florida’s First Professionals Insurance Company we acquired in 2011,” he said.

Doctors with other medical malpractice insurers may also be eligible for a credit up to 25%. In some instances, they may have to be claims free for 5 or 10 years, say insurance experts.

It pays to shop around before purchasing insurance.

3. If you work part time, make sure your premium reflects that

Physicians who see patients part time can receive up to a 75% discount on their medical liability insurance premiums.

The discounts are based on the hours the physician works per week. The fewer hours worked, the larger the discount. This type of discount does not vary by specialty.

According to The Doctors Company, working 10 hours or less per week may entitle doctors to a 75% discount; working 11-20 hours per week may entitle them to a 50% discount, and working 21-30 hours per week may entitle them to a 25% discount. If you are in this situation, it pays to ask your insurer if there is a discount available to you.

4. Look into your professional medical society insurance company

“I would look at your state medical association [or] state specialty society and talk to your colleagues to learn what premiums they’re paying and about any discounts they’re getting,” advised Mr. Zetter.

Some state medical societies have formed their own liability companies and offer lower premiums to their members because “they’re organized and managed by doctors, which makes their premiums more competitive,” Dr. Price said.

Other state medical societies endorse specific insurance carriers and offer their members a 5% discount for enrolling with them.

5. Enroll in a risk management program

Most insurers offer online educational activities designed to improve patient safety and reduce the risk of a lawsuit. Physicians may be eligible for both premium discounts and CME credits.

Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, operates in New York and offers physicians a premium discount of up to 5%, CME credit, and maintenance of certification credit for successfully completing its risk management program every other year.

ProAssurance members nationwide can earn 5% in premium discounts if they complete a 2-hour video series called “Back to Basics: Loss Prevention and Navigating Everyday Risks: Using Data to Drive Change.”

They can earn one credit for completing each webinar on topics such as “Medication Management: Minimizing Errors and Improving Safety” and “Opioid Prescribing: Keeping Patients Safe.”

MagMutual offers its insured physicians 1 CME credit for completing their specialty’s risk assessment and courses, which may be applied toward their premium discounts.

The Doctors Company offers its members a 5% premium discount if they complete 4 CME credits. One of its most popular courses is “How To Get Rid of a Difficult Patient.”

“Busy residents like the shorter case studies worth one-quarter credit that they can complete in 15 minutes,” said Ms. Boisvert.

“This is a good bargain from the physician’s standpoint and the fact that risk management education is offered online makes it a lot easier than going to a seminar in person,” said Dr. Price.

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

As the cost of malpractice insurance continues to increase in many states, physicians in private practice may want to take advantage of discounts insurers offer to reduce premiums.

Getting a better deal might simply mean taking advantage of incentives and discounts your insurer may already offer. These include claims-free, new-to-practice, and working part-time discounts.

However, if you decide to shop around, keep in mind that discounts are just one factor that can affect your premium price – insurers look at your specialty, location, and claims history.

One of the most common ways physicians can earn discounts is by participating in risk management programs. With this type of program, physicians evaluate elements of their practice and documentation practices and identify areas that might leave them at risk for a lawsuit. While they save money, physician risk management programs also are designed to reduce malpractice claims, which ultimately minimizes the potential for bigger financial losses, insurance experts say.

“It’s a win-win situation when liability insurers and physicians work together to minimize risk, and it’s a win for patients,” said Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation.

Doctors in private practice or employed by small hospitals that are not self-insured can qualify for these discounts, said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants.

“I do a lot of work with medical malpractice companies trying to find clients policies. All the carriers are transparent about what physicians have to do to lower their premiums. Physicians can receive the discounts if they follow through and meet the insurer’s requirements,” said Mr. Zetter.

State insurance departments regulate medical malpractice insurance, including the premium credits insurers offer. Most states cap discounts at 25%, but some go as high as 70%, according to The Doctors Company, a national physician-owned medical malpractice insurer.

Insurers typically offer doctors several ways to earn discounts. The size of the discount also can depend on whether a doctor is new to a practice, remains claims free, or takes risk management courses.

In addition to the premium discount, some online risk management classes and webinars are eligible for CME credits.

“The credits can add up and they can be used for recertification or relicensure,” said Susan Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company.

Here are five ways you may qualify for discounts with your insurer.

1. Make use of discounts available to new doctors

Doctors can earn hefty discounts on their premiums when they are no longer interns or residents and start practicing medicine. The Doctors Company usually gives a 50% discount on member premiums the first year they’re in practice and a 25% discount credit in their second year. The discounts end after that.  

Other insurance carriers offer similar discounts to doctors starting to practice medicine. The deepest one is offered in the first year (at least 50%) and a smaller one (20%-25%) the second year, according to medical malpractice brokers.

“The new-to-practice discount is based solely on when the physician left their formal training to begin their practice for the first time; it is not based on claim-free history,” explained Mr. Zetter.

This is a very common discount used by different insurer carriers, said Dr. Price. “New physicians don’t have the same amount of risk of a lawsuit when they’re starting out. It’s unlikely they will have a claim and most liability actions have a 2-year time limit from the date of injury to be filed.”

2. Take advantage of being claims free

If you’ve been claims free for at least a few years, you may be eligible for a large discount.

“Doctors without claims are a better risk. Once a doctor has one claim, they’re likely to have a second, which the research shows,” said Mr. Zetter.

The most common credit The Doctors Company offers is 3 years of being claim free – this earns doctors up to 25%, he said. Mr. Zetter explained that the criteria and size of The Doctors Company credit may depend on the state where physicians practice.

“We allowed insurance carriers that we acquired to continue with their own claim-free discount program such as Florida’s First Professionals Insurance Company we acquired in 2011,” he said.

Doctors with other medical malpractice insurers may also be eligible for a credit up to 25%. In some instances, they may have to be claims free for 5 or 10 years, say insurance experts.

It pays to shop around before purchasing insurance.

3. If you work part time, make sure your premium reflects that

Physicians who see patients part time can receive up to a 75% discount on their medical liability insurance premiums.

The discounts are based on the hours the physician works per week. The fewer hours worked, the larger the discount. This type of discount does not vary by specialty.

According to The Doctors Company, working 10 hours or less per week may entitle doctors to a 75% discount; working 11-20 hours per week may entitle them to a 50% discount, and working 21-30 hours per week may entitle them to a 25% discount. If you are in this situation, it pays to ask your insurer if there is a discount available to you.

4. Look into your professional medical society insurance company

“I would look at your state medical association [or] state specialty society and talk to your colleagues to learn what premiums they’re paying and about any discounts they’re getting,” advised Mr. Zetter.

Some state medical societies have formed their own liability companies and offer lower premiums to their members because “they’re organized and managed by doctors, which makes their premiums more competitive,” Dr. Price said.

Other state medical societies endorse specific insurance carriers and offer their members a 5% discount for enrolling with them.

5. Enroll in a risk management program

Most insurers offer online educational activities designed to improve patient safety and reduce the risk of a lawsuit. Physicians may be eligible for both premium discounts and CME credits.

Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, operates in New York and offers physicians a premium discount of up to 5%, CME credit, and maintenance of certification credit for successfully completing its risk management program every other year.

ProAssurance members nationwide can earn 5% in premium discounts if they complete a 2-hour video series called “Back to Basics: Loss Prevention and Navigating Everyday Risks: Using Data to Drive Change.”

They can earn one credit for completing each webinar on topics such as “Medication Management: Minimizing Errors and Improving Safety” and “Opioid Prescribing: Keeping Patients Safe.”

MagMutual offers its insured physicians 1 CME credit for completing their specialty’s risk assessment and courses, which may be applied toward their premium discounts.

The Doctors Company offers its members a 5% premium discount if they complete 4 CME credits. One of its most popular courses is “How To Get Rid of a Difficult Patient.”

“Busy residents like the shorter case studies worth one-quarter credit that they can complete in 15 minutes,” said Ms. Boisvert.

“This is a good bargain from the physician’s standpoint and the fact that risk management education is offered online makes it a lot easier than going to a seminar in person,” said Dr. Price.

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

As the cost of malpractice insurance continues to increase in many states, physicians in private practice may want to take advantage of discounts insurers offer to reduce premiums.

Getting a better deal might simply mean taking advantage of incentives and discounts your insurer may already offer. These include claims-free, new-to-practice, and working part-time discounts.

However, if you decide to shop around, keep in mind that discounts are just one factor that can affect your premium price – insurers look at your specialty, location, and claims history.

One of the most common ways physicians can earn discounts is by participating in risk management programs. With this type of program, physicians evaluate elements of their practice and documentation practices and identify areas that might leave them at risk for a lawsuit. While they save money, physician risk management programs also are designed to reduce malpractice claims, which ultimately minimizes the potential for bigger financial losses, insurance experts say.

“It’s a win-win situation when liability insurers and physicians work together to minimize risk, and it’s a win for patients,” said Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation.

Doctors in private practice or employed by small hospitals that are not self-insured can qualify for these discounts, said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants.

“I do a lot of work with medical malpractice companies trying to find clients policies. All the carriers are transparent about what physicians have to do to lower their premiums. Physicians can receive the discounts if they follow through and meet the insurer’s requirements,” said Mr. Zetter.

State insurance departments regulate medical malpractice insurance, including the premium credits insurers offer. Most states cap discounts at 25%, but some go as high as 70%, according to The Doctors Company, a national physician-owned medical malpractice insurer.

Insurers typically offer doctors several ways to earn discounts. The size of the discount also can depend on whether a doctor is new to a practice, remains claims free, or takes risk management courses.

In addition to the premium discount, some online risk management classes and webinars are eligible for CME credits.

“The credits can add up and they can be used for recertification or relicensure,” said Susan Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company.

Here are five ways you may qualify for discounts with your insurer.

1. Make use of discounts available to new doctors

Doctors can earn hefty discounts on their premiums when they are no longer interns or residents and start practicing medicine. The Doctors Company usually gives a 50% discount on member premiums the first year they’re in practice and a 25% discount credit in their second year. The discounts end after that.  

Other insurance carriers offer similar discounts to doctors starting to practice medicine. The deepest one is offered in the first year (at least 50%) and a smaller one (20%-25%) the second year, according to medical malpractice brokers.

“The new-to-practice discount is based solely on when the physician left their formal training to begin their practice for the first time; it is not based on claim-free history,” explained Mr. Zetter.

This is a very common discount used by different insurer carriers, said Dr. Price. “New physicians don’t have the same amount of risk of a lawsuit when they’re starting out. It’s unlikely they will have a claim and most liability actions have a 2-year time limit from the date of injury to be filed.”

2. Take advantage of being claims free

If you’ve been claims free for at least a few years, you may be eligible for a large discount.

“Doctors without claims are a better risk. Once a doctor has one claim, they’re likely to have a second, which the research shows,” said Mr. Zetter.

The most common credit The Doctors Company offers is 3 years of being claim free – this earns doctors up to 25%, he said. Mr. Zetter explained that the criteria and size of The Doctors Company credit may depend on the state where physicians practice.

“We allowed insurance carriers that we acquired to continue with their own claim-free discount program such as Florida’s First Professionals Insurance Company we acquired in 2011,” he said.

Doctors with other medical malpractice insurers may also be eligible for a credit up to 25%. In some instances, they may have to be claims free for 5 or 10 years, say insurance experts.

It pays to shop around before purchasing insurance.

3. If you work part time, make sure your premium reflects that

Physicians who see patients part time can receive up to a 75% discount on their medical liability insurance premiums.

The discounts are based on the hours the physician works per week. The fewer hours worked, the larger the discount. This type of discount does not vary by specialty.

According to The Doctors Company, working 10 hours or less per week may entitle doctors to a 75% discount; working 11-20 hours per week may entitle them to a 50% discount, and working 21-30 hours per week may entitle them to a 25% discount. If you are in this situation, it pays to ask your insurer if there is a discount available to you.

4. Look into your professional medical society insurance company

“I would look at your state medical association [or] state specialty society and talk to your colleagues to learn what premiums they’re paying and about any discounts they’re getting,” advised Mr. Zetter.

Some state medical societies have formed their own liability companies and offer lower premiums to their members because “they’re organized and managed by doctors, which makes their premiums more competitive,” Dr. Price said.

Other state medical societies endorse specific insurance carriers and offer their members a 5% discount for enrolling with them.

5. Enroll in a risk management program

Most insurers offer online educational activities designed to improve patient safety and reduce the risk of a lawsuit. Physicians may be eligible for both premium discounts and CME credits.

Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, operates in New York and offers physicians a premium discount of up to 5%, CME credit, and maintenance of certification credit for successfully completing its risk management program every other year.

ProAssurance members nationwide can earn 5% in premium discounts if they complete a 2-hour video series called “Back to Basics: Loss Prevention and Navigating Everyday Risks: Using Data to Drive Change.”

They can earn one credit for completing each webinar on topics such as “Medication Management: Minimizing Errors and Improving Safety” and “Opioid Prescribing: Keeping Patients Safe.”

MagMutual offers its insured physicians 1 CME credit for completing their specialty’s risk assessment and courses, which may be applied toward their premium discounts.

The Doctors Company offers its members a 5% premium discount if they complete 4 CME credits. One of its most popular courses is “How To Get Rid of a Difficult Patient.”

“Busy residents like the shorter case studies worth one-quarter credit that they can complete in 15 minutes,” said Ms. Boisvert.

“This is a good bargain from the physician’s standpoint and the fact that risk management education is offered online makes it a lot easier than going to a seminar in person,” said Dr. Price.

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

WASHINGTON – A bundled intervention combining point-of-care testing, electronic medical record support, and provider education significantly improved lipid screening rates in children aged 9-11 years, according to data from approximately 100 monthly visits over a 3-year period.

Guidelines from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute currently recommend universal lipid screening for children aged 9-11 years, but screening rates in clinical practice remain low, according to Ruth E. Gardner, MD, of Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues.

In a poster presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, Dr. Gardner and colleagues shared results of the implementation of a bundled testing protocol designed to improve screening.

The researchers reviewed data on lipid testing within 30 days for all 9- to 11-year-old well child visits at a single center between May 2019 and February 2022. The bundled intervention was introduced in May 2021.

The bundled protocol included in-office capillary testing and provider education. In addition, electronic medical record templates were modified to include prompts for lipid screening at relevant ages, and EMR orders were adjusted to include lipid testing. The researchers also collected targeted provider feedback on individualized screening rates in February 2022.

Screening rates were plotted monthly. For the period from May 2019 through May 2021, the rates averaged 6.5%. However, after the introduction of the bundled intervention, the rate increased to 29.9%. Following targeted provider feedback in February 2022, the researchers found an additional shift to 52.1% through March and April 2022.

The findings were limited by the use of data from a single center, and the researchers used an extended study period to account for disruptions to well-child care in the spring of 2020 related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the results support the effectiveness of a bundled intervention for improving lipid screening rates in children aged 9-11 years, the researchers said, and targeted provider feedback and education could yield additional improvements, they concluded.
 

Preteen years are an optimal time for screening

“The current study is important because atherosclerosis begins in childhood, and screening at ages 9-11 is an optimal time to begin lifestyle changes to improve overall health and reduce risks of heart disease,” said Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, in an interview.

Ms. Thew, who was not involved in the study, said, “The number of recommended and required screening items needed in pediatrics is vast, so many providers have to select which items to focus on for their health screenings with these ages.”

Overall, “I was impressed with the improvements that were made in this quality improvement study,” said Ms. Thew.

Barriers to lipid screening in this population include the reduced number of health screenings and immunizations recommended for this age group; the consequence is that access is limited to discuss preventive care opportunities, said Ms. Thew in an interview. Steps to overcome these barriers could include the use of many of the screening tools introduced in the current study, such as point-of-care testing in the office, use of the EMR to remind providers of testing, which can be done during well visits or school physicals, and educating providers about the current guidelines, she noted.

Other strategies to increase screening include moving the immunization series to provide more frequent appointments to children aged 9-11 years to offer education and preventive care, Ms. Thew added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Thew had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.
 

WASHINGTON – A bundled intervention combining point-of-care testing, electronic medical record support, and provider education significantly improved lipid screening rates in children aged 9-11 years, according to data from approximately 100 monthly visits over a 3-year period.

Guidelines from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute currently recommend universal lipid screening for children aged 9-11 years, but screening rates in clinical practice remain low, according to Ruth E. Gardner, MD, of Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues.

In a poster presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, Dr. Gardner and colleagues shared results of the implementation of a bundled testing protocol designed to improve screening.

The researchers reviewed data on lipid testing within 30 days for all 9- to 11-year-old well child visits at a single center between May 2019 and February 2022. The bundled intervention was introduced in May 2021.

The bundled protocol included in-office capillary testing and provider education. In addition, electronic medical record templates were modified to include prompts for lipid screening at relevant ages, and EMR orders were adjusted to include lipid testing. The researchers also collected targeted provider feedback on individualized screening rates in February 2022.

Screening rates were plotted monthly. For the period from May 2019 through May 2021, the rates averaged 6.5%. However, after the introduction of the bundled intervention, the rate increased to 29.9%. Following targeted provider feedback in February 2022, the researchers found an additional shift to 52.1% through March and April 2022.

The findings were limited by the use of data from a single center, and the researchers used an extended study period to account for disruptions to well-child care in the spring of 2020 related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the results support the effectiveness of a bundled intervention for improving lipid screening rates in children aged 9-11 years, the researchers said, and targeted provider feedback and education could yield additional improvements, they concluded.
 

Preteen years are an optimal time for screening

“The current study is important because atherosclerosis begins in childhood, and screening at ages 9-11 is an optimal time to begin lifestyle changes to improve overall health and reduce risks of heart disease,” said Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, in an interview.

Ms. Thew, who was not involved in the study, said, “The number of recommended and required screening items needed in pediatrics is vast, so many providers have to select which items to focus on for their health screenings with these ages.”

Overall, “I was impressed with the improvements that were made in this quality improvement study,” said Ms. Thew.

Barriers to lipid screening in this population include the reduced number of health screenings and immunizations recommended for this age group; the consequence is that access is limited to discuss preventive care opportunities, said Ms. Thew in an interview. Steps to overcome these barriers could include the use of many of the screening tools introduced in the current study, such as point-of-care testing in the office, use of the EMR to remind providers of testing, which can be done during well visits or school physicals, and educating providers about the current guidelines, she noted.

Other strategies to increase screening include moving the immunization series to provide more frequent appointments to children aged 9-11 years to offer education and preventive care, Ms. Thew added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Thew had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.
 

WASHINGTON – A bundled intervention combining point-of-care testing, electronic medical record support, and provider education significantly improved lipid screening rates in children aged 9-11 years, according to data from approximately 100 monthly visits over a 3-year period.

Guidelines from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute currently recommend universal lipid screening for children aged 9-11 years, but screening rates in clinical practice remain low, according to Ruth E. Gardner, MD, of Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues.

In a poster presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, Dr. Gardner and colleagues shared results of the implementation of a bundled testing protocol designed to improve screening.

The researchers reviewed data on lipid testing within 30 days for all 9- to 11-year-old well child visits at a single center between May 2019 and February 2022. The bundled intervention was introduced in May 2021.

The bundled protocol included in-office capillary testing and provider education. In addition, electronic medical record templates were modified to include prompts for lipid screening at relevant ages, and EMR orders were adjusted to include lipid testing. The researchers also collected targeted provider feedback on individualized screening rates in February 2022.

Screening rates were plotted monthly. For the period from May 2019 through May 2021, the rates averaged 6.5%. However, after the introduction of the bundled intervention, the rate increased to 29.9%. Following targeted provider feedback in February 2022, the researchers found an additional shift to 52.1% through March and April 2022.

The findings were limited by the use of data from a single center, and the researchers used an extended study period to account for disruptions to well-child care in the spring of 2020 related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the results support the effectiveness of a bundled intervention for improving lipid screening rates in children aged 9-11 years, the researchers said, and targeted provider feedback and education could yield additional improvements, they concluded.
 

Preteen years are an optimal time for screening

“The current study is important because atherosclerosis begins in childhood, and screening at ages 9-11 is an optimal time to begin lifestyle changes to improve overall health and reduce risks of heart disease,” said Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, in an interview.

Ms. Thew, who was not involved in the study, said, “The number of recommended and required screening items needed in pediatrics is vast, so many providers have to select which items to focus on for their health screenings with these ages.”

Overall, “I was impressed with the improvements that were made in this quality improvement study,” said Ms. Thew.

Barriers to lipid screening in this population include the reduced number of health screenings and immunizations recommended for this age group; the consequence is that access is limited to discuss preventive care opportunities, said Ms. Thew in an interview. Steps to overcome these barriers could include the use of many of the screening tools introduced in the current study, such as point-of-care testing in the office, use of the EMR to remind providers of testing, which can be done during well visits or school physicals, and educating providers about the current guidelines, she noted.

Other strategies to increase screening include moving the immunization series to provide more frequent appointments to children aged 9-11 years to offer education and preventive care, Ms. Thew added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Thew had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.