User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Top Predictors of Substance Initiation in Youth Flagged
, new research suggests.
Aside from sociodemographic parameters, risk factors for substance use initiation include prenatal exposure to substances, peer use of alcohol and nicotine, and problematic school behavior, among other things, the study showed.
The results show certain modifiable risk factors may play a role in preventing youth from starting to use substances, said study author ReJoyce Green, PhD, research assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
“If we’re designing, say, a prevention program or an early intervention program, these are things that could make a difference, so let’s make sure we’re bringing them into the conversation.”
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association American Psychiatric Association (APA) and published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.
Critical Risk Factors
Use of alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis often begins during adolescence. One recent survey showed that 23% of 13-year-olds reported using alcohol, 17% reported vaping nicotine, and 8% reported vaping cannabis. Other research links younger age at substance use initiation to a more rapid transition to substance use disorders and higher rates of psychiatric disorders.
Previous studies examining predictors of substance use initiation in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study dataset focused primarily on self-reported measures, but the current study also looked at models that include hormones and neurocognitive factors as well as neuroimaging.
This study included 6829, 9- and 10-year-olds from the ABCD Study who had never tried substances and were followed for 3 years.
A sophisticated statistical approach was used to examine 420 variables as predictors of substance use initiation. Initiation was defined as trying any nonprescribed substance by age 12 years. “That’s including a single sip of alcohol or puff of a cigarette,” said Dr. Green.
In addition to alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis, researchers looked at initiation of synthetic cannabinoids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and ketamine, among other substances.
Self-reported measures included demographic characteristics, self and peer involvement with substance use, parenting behaviors, mental and physical health, and culture and environmental factors.
The analytical approach used machine-learning algorithms to compare the ability of domains to identify the most critical risk factors. Magnitudes of coefficients were used to assess variable importance, with positive coefficients indicating greater likelihood of substance initiation and negative coefficients indicating lower likelihood of initiation.
By age 12 years, 14.4% of the children studied reported substance initiation. Alcohol was the substance most commonly initiated (365 individuals), followed by nicotine (94 individuals) and cannabis (40 individuals), with few or no children initiating other substances.
Both those who did and did not initiate substances were similarly aged, and most participants identified as White and non-Hispanic. But the substance-use group had a lower percentage of girls and higher percentage of White participants compared with the no-substance-use group.
The model with only self-reported data had similar accuracy in predicting substance use initiation (area under the curve [AUC], 0.67) as models that added resource-intensive measures such as neurocognitive tests and hormones (AUC, 0.67) and neuroimaging (AUC, 0.66).
Religious Predictors
The strongest predictors of substance use initiation were related to religion: Youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Mormonism were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.87), whereas youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Judaism were more likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.32).
The third top predictor was race: Black youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.32). This was followed by youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Islam who were also less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.25).
The research examined over 15 different religious categories, “so we really tried to be expansive,” noted Dr. Green.
It’s unclear why some religions appeared to have a protective impact when it comes to substance use initiation whereas others have the opposite effect. Future research could perhaps identify which components of religiosity affect substance use initiation. If so, these aspects could be developed and incorporated into prevention and intervention programs, said Dr. Green.
Next on the list of most important predictors was being a part of a household with an income of $12,000-$15,999; these youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.22).
Within the culture and environment domain, a history of detention or suspension was a top predictor of substance use initiation (coefficient, 0.20). Prenatal exposure to substance use was also a robust predictor in the physical health category (coefficient, 0.15).
Other predictors included: parents with less than a high school degree or GED (coefficient, -0.14), substance use availability (coefficient, 0.12), and age at baseline (coefficient, 0.12).
The study also showed that better cognitive functioning in selected domains (eg, cognitive control, attention, and language ability) is associated with a greater likelihood of substance use initiation.
Shaping Future Prevention
Applying these findings in clinical settings could help tailor prevention and early intervention efforts, said the authors. It might be prudent to allocate resources to collecting data related to self-, peer-, and familial-related factors, “which were more informative in predicting substance use initiation during late childhood and early adolescence in the present study,” they wrote.
Researchers will continue to track these children through to a 10-year follow-up, said Dr. Green. “I’m really curious to see if the factors we found when they were 12 and 13, such as those related to peers and family, still hold when they’re ages 17 and 18, because there’s going to be a huge amount of brain development that’s happening throughout this phase.”
The group that initiated substance use and the group that didn’t initiate substance use were not totally balanced, and sample sizes for some religious categories were small. Another study limitation was that the analytic approach didn’t account for multilevel data within the context of site and families.
Commenting on the findings, Kathleen Brady, MD, PhD, distinguished university professor and director, South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, said that the study is “critical and complex.” This, she said, is especially true as cannabis has become more accessible and potent, and as the federal government reportedly considers reclassifying it from a Schedule I drug (which includes highly dangerous, addictive substances with no medical use) to a Schedule III drug (which can be prescribed as a medication).
“The part that is the most frightening to me is the long-lasting effects that can happen when young people start using high-potency marijuana at an early age,” said Dr. Brady. “So, any information that we can give to parents, to teachers, to the public, and to doctors is important.”
She’s looking forward to getting more “incredibly important” information on substance use initiation as the study progresses and the teens get older.
The study received support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
Aside from sociodemographic parameters, risk factors for substance use initiation include prenatal exposure to substances, peer use of alcohol and nicotine, and problematic school behavior, among other things, the study showed.
The results show certain modifiable risk factors may play a role in preventing youth from starting to use substances, said study author ReJoyce Green, PhD, research assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
“If we’re designing, say, a prevention program or an early intervention program, these are things that could make a difference, so let’s make sure we’re bringing them into the conversation.”
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association American Psychiatric Association (APA) and published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.
Critical Risk Factors
Use of alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis often begins during adolescence. One recent survey showed that 23% of 13-year-olds reported using alcohol, 17% reported vaping nicotine, and 8% reported vaping cannabis. Other research links younger age at substance use initiation to a more rapid transition to substance use disorders and higher rates of psychiatric disorders.
Previous studies examining predictors of substance use initiation in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study dataset focused primarily on self-reported measures, but the current study also looked at models that include hormones and neurocognitive factors as well as neuroimaging.
This study included 6829, 9- and 10-year-olds from the ABCD Study who had never tried substances and were followed for 3 years.
A sophisticated statistical approach was used to examine 420 variables as predictors of substance use initiation. Initiation was defined as trying any nonprescribed substance by age 12 years. “That’s including a single sip of alcohol or puff of a cigarette,” said Dr. Green.
In addition to alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis, researchers looked at initiation of synthetic cannabinoids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and ketamine, among other substances.
Self-reported measures included demographic characteristics, self and peer involvement with substance use, parenting behaviors, mental and physical health, and culture and environmental factors.
The analytical approach used machine-learning algorithms to compare the ability of domains to identify the most critical risk factors. Magnitudes of coefficients were used to assess variable importance, with positive coefficients indicating greater likelihood of substance initiation and negative coefficients indicating lower likelihood of initiation.
By age 12 years, 14.4% of the children studied reported substance initiation. Alcohol was the substance most commonly initiated (365 individuals), followed by nicotine (94 individuals) and cannabis (40 individuals), with few or no children initiating other substances.
Both those who did and did not initiate substances were similarly aged, and most participants identified as White and non-Hispanic. But the substance-use group had a lower percentage of girls and higher percentage of White participants compared with the no-substance-use group.
The model with only self-reported data had similar accuracy in predicting substance use initiation (area under the curve [AUC], 0.67) as models that added resource-intensive measures such as neurocognitive tests and hormones (AUC, 0.67) and neuroimaging (AUC, 0.66).
Religious Predictors
The strongest predictors of substance use initiation were related to religion: Youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Mormonism were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.87), whereas youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Judaism were more likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.32).
The third top predictor was race: Black youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.32). This was followed by youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Islam who were also less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.25).
The research examined over 15 different religious categories, “so we really tried to be expansive,” noted Dr. Green.
It’s unclear why some religions appeared to have a protective impact when it comes to substance use initiation whereas others have the opposite effect. Future research could perhaps identify which components of religiosity affect substance use initiation. If so, these aspects could be developed and incorporated into prevention and intervention programs, said Dr. Green.
Next on the list of most important predictors was being a part of a household with an income of $12,000-$15,999; these youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.22).
Within the culture and environment domain, a history of detention or suspension was a top predictor of substance use initiation (coefficient, 0.20). Prenatal exposure to substance use was also a robust predictor in the physical health category (coefficient, 0.15).
Other predictors included: parents with less than a high school degree or GED (coefficient, -0.14), substance use availability (coefficient, 0.12), and age at baseline (coefficient, 0.12).
The study also showed that better cognitive functioning in selected domains (eg, cognitive control, attention, and language ability) is associated with a greater likelihood of substance use initiation.
Shaping Future Prevention
Applying these findings in clinical settings could help tailor prevention and early intervention efforts, said the authors. It might be prudent to allocate resources to collecting data related to self-, peer-, and familial-related factors, “which were more informative in predicting substance use initiation during late childhood and early adolescence in the present study,” they wrote.
Researchers will continue to track these children through to a 10-year follow-up, said Dr. Green. “I’m really curious to see if the factors we found when they were 12 and 13, such as those related to peers and family, still hold when they’re ages 17 and 18, because there’s going to be a huge amount of brain development that’s happening throughout this phase.”
The group that initiated substance use and the group that didn’t initiate substance use were not totally balanced, and sample sizes for some religious categories were small. Another study limitation was that the analytic approach didn’t account for multilevel data within the context of site and families.
Commenting on the findings, Kathleen Brady, MD, PhD, distinguished university professor and director, South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, said that the study is “critical and complex.” This, she said, is especially true as cannabis has become more accessible and potent, and as the federal government reportedly considers reclassifying it from a Schedule I drug (which includes highly dangerous, addictive substances with no medical use) to a Schedule III drug (which can be prescribed as a medication).
“The part that is the most frightening to me is the long-lasting effects that can happen when young people start using high-potency marijuana at an early age,” said Dr. Brady. “So, any information that we can give to parents, to teachers, to the public, and to doctors is important.”
She’s looking forward to getting more “incredibly important” information on substance use initiation as the study progresses and the teens get older.
The study received support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
Aside from sociodemographic parameters, risk factors for substance use initiation include prenatal exposure to substances, peer use of alcohol and nicotine, and problematic school behavior, among other things, the study showed.
The results show certain modifiable risk factors may play a role in preventing youth from starting to use substances, said study author ReJoyce Green, PhD, research assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
“If we’re designing, say, a prevention program or an early intervention program, these are things that could make a difference, so let’s make sure we’re bringing them into the conversation.”
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association American Psychiatric Association (APA) and published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.
Critical Risk Factors
Use of alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis often begins during adolescence. One recent survey showed that 23% of 13-year-olds reported using alcohol, 17% reported vaping nicotine, and 8% reported vaping cannabis. Other research links younger age at substance use initiation to a more rapid transition to substance use disorders and higher rates of psychiatric disorders.
Previous studies examining predictors of substance use initiation in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study dataset focused primarily on self-reported measures, but the current study also looked at models that include hormones and neurocognitive factors as well as neuroimaging.
This study included 6829, 9- and 10-year-olds from the ABCD Study who had never tried substances and were followed for 3 years.
A sophisticated statistical approach was used to examine 420 variables as predictors of substance use initiation. Initiation was defined as trying any nonprescribed substance by age 12 years. “That’s including a single sip of alcohol or puff of a cigarette,” said Dr. Green.
In addition to alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis, researchers looked at initiation of synthetic cannabinoids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and ketamine, among other substances.
Self-reported measures included demographic characteristics, self and peer involvement with substance use, parenting behaviors, mental and physical health, and culture and environmental factors.
The analytical approach used machine-learning algorithms to compare the ability of domains to identify the most critical risk factors. Magnitudes of coefficients were used to assess variable importance, with positive coefficients indicating greater likelihood of substance initiation and negative coefficients indicating lower likelihood of initiation.
By age 12 years, 14.4% of the children studied reported substance initiation. Alcohol was the substance most commonly initiated (365 individuals), followed by nicotine (94 individuals) and cannabis (40 individuals), with few or no children initiating other substances.
Both those who did and did not initiate substances were similarly aged, and most participants identified as White and non-Hispanic. But the substance-use group had a lower percentage of girls and higher percentage of White participants compared with the no-substance-use group.
The model with only self-reported data had similar accuracy in predicting substance use initiation (area under the curve [AUC], 0.67) as models that added resource-intensive measures such as neurocognitive tests and hormones (AUC, 0.67) and neuroimaging (AUC, 0.66).
Religious Predictors
The strongest predictors of substance use initiation were related to religion: Youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Mormonism were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.87), whereas youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Judaism were more likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.32).
The third top predictor was race: Black youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.32). This was followed by youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Islam who were also less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.25).
The research examined over 15 different religious categories, “so we really tried to be expansive,” noted Dr. Green.
It’s unclear why some religions appeared to have a protective impact when it comes to substance use initiation whereas others have the opposite effect. Future research could perhaps identify which components of religiosity affect substance use initiation. If so, these aspects could be developed and incorporated into prevention and intervention programs, said Dr. Green.
Next on the list of most important predictors was being a part of a household with an income of $12,000-$15,999; these youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.22).
Within the culture and environment domain, a history of detention or suspension was a top predictor of substance use initiation (coefficient, 0.20). Prenatal exposure to substance use was also a robust predictor in the physical health category (coefficient, 0.15).
Other predictors included: parents with less than a high school degree or GED (coefficient, -0.14), substance use availability (coefficient, 0.12), and age at baseline (coefficient, 0.12).
The study also showed that better cognitive functioning in selected domains (eg, cognitive control, attention, and language ability) is associated with a greater likelihood of substance use initiation.
Shaping Future Prevention
Applying these findings in clinical settings could help tailor prevention and early intervention efforts, said the authors. It might be prudent to allocate resources to collecting data related to self-, peer-, and familial-related factors, “which were more informative in predicting substance use initiation during late childhood and early adolescence in the present study,” they wrote.
Researchers will continue to track these children through to a 10-year follow-up, said Dr. Green. “I’m really curious to see if the factors we found when they were 12 and 13, such as those related to peers and family, still hold when they’re ages 17 and 18, because there’s going to be a huge amount of brain development that’s happening throughout this phase.”
The group that initiated substance use and the group that didn’t initiate substance use were not totally balanced, and sample sizes for some religious categories were small. Another study limitation was that the analytic approach didn’t account for multilevel data within the context of site and families.
Commenting on the findings, Kathleen Brady, MD, PhD, distinguished university professor and director, South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, said that the study is “critical and complex.” This, she said, is especially true as cannabis has become more accessible and potent, and as the federal government reportedly considers reclassifying it from a Schedule I drug (which includes highly dangerous, addictive substances with no medical use) to a Schedule III drug (which can be prescribed as a medication).
“The part that is the most frightening to me is the long-lasting effects that can happen when young people start using high-potency marijuana at an early age,” said Dr. Brady. “So, any information that we can give to parents, to teachers, to the public, and to doctors is important.”
She’s looking forward to getting more “incredibly important” information on substance use initiation as the study progresses and the teens get older.
The study received support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM APA 2024
Jumpstart Your AI Learning: The Very Best Resources for Doctors
Like it or not, artificial intelligence (AI) is coming to medicine. For many physicians — maybe you — it’s already here.
More than a third of physicians use AI in their practice. And the vast majority of healthcare companies — 94%, according to Morgan Stanley — use some kind of AI machine learning.
“It’s incumbent on physicians, as well as physicians in training, to become familiar with at least the basics [of AI],” said internist Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
“Frankly, the people who are deciding whether to implement algorithms in our day-to-day lives are oftentimes not physicians,” noted Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of augmented and artificial intelligence at the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Philadelphia. Yet, physicians are most qualified to assess an AI tool’s usefulness in clinical practice.
That brings us to the best starting place for your AI education: Your own institution. Find out what AI tools your organization is implementing — and how you can influence them.
“Getting involved with our hospital data governance is the best way not only to learn practically what these AI tools do but also to influence the development process in positive ways,” Dr. Parikh said.
From there, consider the following resources to enhance your AI knowledge.
Get a Lay of the Land: Free Primers
Many clinical societies and interest groups have put out AI primers, an easy way to get a broad overview of the technology. The following were recommended or developed by the experts we spoke to, and all are free:
- The American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) framework for advancing healthcare AI lays out actionable guidance. Ask three key questions, the AMA recommends: Does it work? Does it work for my patients? Does it improve health outcomes?
- The Coalition for Health AI’s Blueprint for Trustworthy AI Implementation Guidance and Assurance for Healthcare provides a high-level summary of how to evaluate AI in healthcare, plus steps for implementing it. AI systems should be useful, safe, accountable, explainable, fair, and secure, the report asserted.
- The National Academy of Medicine’s draft code of conduct for AI in healthcare proposes core principles and commitments. These “reflect simple guideposts to guide and gauge behavior in a complex system and provide a starting point for real-time decision-making,” the report said.
- Health AI Partnership — a collaboration of Duke Health and Microsoft — outlines eight key decision points to consider at any stage of AI implementation, whether you’re still planning how to use it or you’ve started but want to improve it. The site also provides a breakdown of standards by regulatory agencies, organizations, and oversight bodies — so you can make sure your practices align with their guidance.
Make the Most of Conferences
Next time you’re at a conference, check the agenda for sessions on AI. “For someone who’s interested in this, I would be looking for content in my next national meeting because, undoubtedly, it’s going to be there,” said Dr. DeCamp. In a fast-moving field like AI, it’s a great way to get fresh, up-to-the-moment insights.
Listen to This Podcast
The New England Journal of Medicine’s free monthly podcast AI Grand Rounds is made for researchers and clinicians. Available on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube, the pod is good for “someone who’s looking to see both where the field is going [and to hear] a retrospective on big-name papers,” said Dr. Parikh . Episodes run for about an hour.
To learn about the challenges of applying AI to biology: Listen to Daphne Koller, PhD, founder of AI-driven drug discovery and development company insitro. For insights on the potential of AI in medicine, tune into the one with Eric Horvitz, MD, PhD, Microsoft’s chief scientific officer.
Consider a Class
Look for courses that focus on AI applications in clinical practice rather than a deep dive into theory. (You need to understand how these tools will influence your work, not the intricacies of large language model development.) Be wary of corporate-funded training that centers on one product , which could present conflicts of interest, said Dr. DeCamp. See the chart for courses that meet these criteria.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Like it or not, artificial intelligence (AI) is coming to medicine. For many physicians — maybe you — it’s already here.
More than a third of physicians use AI in their practice. And the vast majority of healthcare companies — 94%, according to Morgan Stanley — use some kind of AI machine learning.
“It’s incumbent on physicians, as well as physicians in training, to become familiar with at least the basics [of AI],” said internist Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
“Frankly, the people who are deciding whether to implement algorithms in our day-to-day lives are oftentimes not physicians,” noted Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of augmented and artificial intelligence at the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Philadelphia. Yet, physicians are most qualified to assess an AI tool’s usefulness in clinical practice.
That brings us to the best starting place for your AI education: Your own institution. Find out what AI tools your organization is implementing — and how you can influence them.
“Getting involved with our hospital data governance is the best way not only to learn practically what these AI tools do but also to influence the development process in positive ways,” Dr. Parikh said.
From there, consider the following resources to enhance your AI knowledge.
Get a Lay of the Land: Free Primers
Many clinical societies and interest groups have put out AI primers, an easy way to get a broad overview of the technology. The following were recommended or developed by the experts we spoke to, and all are free:
- The American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) framework for advancing healthcare AI lays out actionable guidance. Ask three key questions, the AMA recommends: Does it work? Does it work for my patients? Does it improve health outcomes?
- The Coalition for Health AI’s Blueprint for Trustworthy AI Implementation Guidance and Assurance for Healthcare provides a high-level summary of how to evaluate AI in healthcare, plus steps for implementing it. AI systems should be useful, safe, accountable, explainable, fair, and secure, the report asserted.
- The National Academy of Medicine’s draft code of conduct for AI in healthcare proposes core principles and commitments. These “reflect simple guideposts to guide and gauge behavior in a complex system and provide a starting point for real-time decision-making,” the report said.
- Health AI Partnership — a collaboration of Duke Health and Microsoft — outlines eight key decision points to consider at any stage of AI implementation, whether you’re still planning how to use it or you’ve started but want to improve it. The site also provides a breakdown of standards by regulatory agencies, organizations, and oversight bodies — so you can make sure your practices align with their guidance.
Make the Most of Conferences
Next time you’re at a conference, check the agenda for sessions on AI. “For someone who’s interested in this, I would be looking for content in my next national meeting because, undoubtedly, it’s going to be there,” said Dr. DeCamp. In a fast-moving field like AI, it’s a great way to get fresh, up-to-the-moment insights.
Listen to This Podcast
The New England Journal of Medicine’s free monthly podcast AI Grand Rounds is made for researchers and clinicians. Available on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube, the pod is good for “someone who’s looking to see both where the field is going [and to hear] a retrospective on big-name papers,” said Dr. Parikh . Episodes run for about an hour.
To learn about the challenges of applying AI to biology: Listen to Daphne Koller, PhD, founder of AI-driven drug discovery and development company insitro. For insights on the potential of AI in medicine, tune into the one with Eric Horvitz, MD, PhD, Microsoft’s chief scientific officer.
Consider a Class
Look for courses that focus on AI applications in clinical practice rather than a deep dive into theory. (You need to understand how these tools will influence your work, not the intricacies of large language model development.) Be wary of corporate-funded training that centers on one product , which could present conflicts of interest, said Dr. DeCamp. See the chart for courses that meet these criteria.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Like it or not, artificial intelligence (AI) is coming to medicine. For many physicians — maybe you — it’s already here.
More than a third of physicians use AI in their practice. And the vast majority of healthcare companies — 94%, according to Morgan Stanley — use some kind of AI machine learning.
“It’s incumbent on physicians, as well as physicians in training, to become familiar with at least the basics [of AI],” said internist Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
“Frankly, the people who are deciding whether to implement algorithms in our day-to-day lives are oftentimes not physicians,” noted Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of augmented and artificial intelligence at the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Philadelphia. Yet, physicians are most qualified to assess an AI tool’s usefulness in clinical practice.
That brings us to the best starting place for your AI education: Your own institution. Find out what AI tools your organization is implementing — and how you can influence them.
“Getting involved with our hospital data governance is the best way not only to learn practically what these AI tools do but also to influence the development process in positive ways,” Dr. Parikh said.
From there, consider the following resources to enhance your AI knowledge.
Get a Lay of the Land: Free Primers
Many clinical societies and interest groups have put out AI primers, an easy way to get a broad overview of the technology. The following were recommended or developed by the experts we spoke to, and all are free:
- The American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) framework for advancing healthcare AI lays out actionable guidance. Ask three key questions, the AMA recommends: Does it work? Does it work for my patients? Does it improve health outcomes?
- The Coalition for Health AI’s Blueprint for Trustworthy AI Implementation Guidance and Assurance for Healthcare provides a high-level summary of how to evaluate AI in healthcare, plus steps for implementing it. AI systems should be useful, safe, accountable, explainable, fair, and secure, the report asserted.
- The National Academy of Medicine’s draft code of conduct for AI in healthcare proposes core principles and commitments. These “reflect simple guideposts to guide and gauge behavior in a complex system and provide a starting point for real-time decision-making,” the report said.
- Health AI Partnership — a collaboration of Duke Health and Microsoft — outlines eight key decision points to consider at any stage of AI implementation, whether you’re still planning how to use it or you’ve started but want to improve it. The site also provides a breakdown of standards by regulatory agencies, organizations, and oversight bodies — so you can make sure your practices align with their guidance.
Make the Most of Conferences
Next time you’re at a conference, check the agenda for sessions on AI. “For someone who’s interested in this, I would be looking for content in my next national meeting because, undoubtedly, it’s going to be there,” said Dr. DeCamp. In a fast-moving field like AI, it’s a great way to get fresh, up-to-the-moment insights.
Listen to This Podcast
The New England Journal of Medicine’s free monthly podcast AI Grand Rounds is made for researchers and clinicians. Available on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube, the pod is good for “someone who’s looking to see both where the field is going [and to hear] a retrospective on big-name papers,” said Dr. Parikh . Episodes run for about an hour.
To learn about the challenges of applying AI to biology: Listen to Daphne Koller, PhD, founder of AI-driven drug discovery and development company insitro. For insights on the potential of AI in medicine, tune into the one with Eric Horvitz, MD, PhD, Microsoft’s chief scientific officer.
Consider a Class
Look for courses that focus on AI applications in clinical practice rather than a deep dive into theory. (You need to understand how these tools will influence your work, not the intricacies of large language model development.) Be wary of corporate-funded training that centers on one product , which could present conflicts of interest, said Dr. DeCamp. See the chart for courses that meet these criteria.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PCP Compensation, Part 2
In my last column, I began to explore the factors affecting the compensation of primary care providers (PCPs). I described two apparent economic paradoxes. First, while most healthcare systems consider their primary care segments as loss leaders, they continue to seek and hire more PCPs. The second is while PCPs are in short supply, most of them feel that they are underpaid. Supply and demand doesn’t seem to be making them more valuable in the economic sense. The explanations for these nonintuitive observations are first, healthcare systems need the volume of patients stored in the practices of even unprofitable primary care physicians to feed the high-profit specialties in their businesses. Second, there is a limit to how large a gap between revenue and overhead the systems can accept for their primary care practices. Not surprisingly, this means that system administrators must continue to nudge those PCP practices closer toward profitability, usually by demanding higher productivity.
As I did in my last letter, I will continue to lean on a discussion for PCP compensation by a large international management consulting firm I found on the internet. I am not condoning the consultant’s advice, but merely using it as a scaffolding on which to hang the rather squishy topics of time, clinical quality, and patient satisfaction. I only intend to ask questions, and I promise no answers.
First, let me make it clear that I am defining PCPs as providers who are on a performance-based pathway, which is by far the most prevalent model. A fixed-salary arrangement hasn’t made sense to me since I was a 17-year-old lifeguard paid by the hour for sitting by a pool. Had I been paid by the rescue, I would have finished the summer empty handed. A fixed salary provided me a sense of security, but it offered no path for advancement and was boring as hell. The primary care provider I am talking about has an interest in developing relationships with his/her patients, building a practice, and offering some degree of continuity. In other words, I am not considering providers working in walk-in clinics as PCPs.
Size Matters
My high-powered management consultant is recommending to his healthcare system management clients that they emphasize panel size component as they craft their compensation packages for PCPs. Maybe even to the point of giving it more weight than the productivity piece. This, of course, makes perfect business sense if the primary value of a PCP to the system lies in the patients he/she brings into the system.
What does this emphasis on size mean for you as a provider? If your boss is following my consultant’s advice, then you would want to be growing your panel size to improve your compensation. You could do this by a marketing plan that makes you more popular. But, I can hear you muttering that you never wanted to be a contestant in a popularity contest. Although I must say that historically this was a fact of life in any community when new providers came to town.
A provider can choose his/her own definition of popularity. You can let it be known that you are a liberal prescription writer and fill your practice with drug-seeking patients. Or you could promote customer-friendly schedules and behaviors in your office staff. And, of course, you can simply exude an aura of caring, which has always been an effective practice-building tool.
On the other hand, you may believe that you have more patients than you can handle. You may fear that growing your practice runs the risk of putting the quality of your patients’ care and your own physical and mental health at risk.
Theoretically, you could keep your panel size unchanged and increase your productivity to enhance your value and therefore your compensation. In the next part of this miniseries we’ll look at the stumbling blocks that can make increasing productivity difficult.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
In my last column, I began to explore the factors affecting the compensation of primary care providers (PCPs). I described two apparent economic paradoxes. First, while most healthcare systems consider their primary care segments as loss leaders, they continue to seek and hire more PCPs. The second is while PCPs are in short supply, most of them feel that they are underpaid. Supply and demand doesn’t seem to be making them more valuable in the economic sense. The explanations for these nonintuitive observations are first, healthcare systems need the volume of patients stored in the practices of even unprofitable primary care physicians to feed the high-profit specialties in their businesses. Second, there is a limit to how large a gap between revenue and overhead the systems can accept for their primary care practices. Not surprisingly, this means that system administrators must continue to nudge those PCP practices closer toward profitability, usually by demanding higher productivity.
As I did in my last letter, I will continue to lean on a discussion for PCP compensation by a large international management consulting firm I found on the internet. I am not condoning the consultant’s advice, but merely using it as a scaffolding on which to hang the rather squishy topics of time, clinical quality, and patient satisfaction. I only intend to ask questions, and I promise no answers.
First, let me make it clear that I am defining PCPs as providers who are on a performance-based pathway, which is by far the most prevalent model. A fixed-salary arrangement hasn’t made sense to me since I was a 17-year-old lifeguard paid by the hour for sitting by a pool. Had I been paid by the rescue, I would have finished the summer empty handed. A fixed salary provided me a sense of security, but it offered no path for advancement and was boring as hell. The primary care provider I am talking about has an interest in developing relationships with his/her patients, building a practice, and offering some degree of continuity. In other words, I am not considering providers working in walk-in clinics as PCPs.
Size Matters
My high-powered management consultant is recommending to his healthcare system management clients that they emphasize panel size component as they craft their compensation packages for PCPs. Maybe even to the point of giving it more weight than the productivity piece. This, of course, makes perfect business sense if the primary value of a PCP to the system lies in the patients he/she brings into the system.
What does this emphasis on size mean for you as a provider? If your boss is following my consultant’s advice, then you would want to be growing your panel size to improve your compensation. You could do this by a marketing plan that makes you more popular. But, I can hear you muttering that you never wanted to be a contestant in a popularity contest. Although I must say that historically this was a fact of life in any community when new providers came to town.
A provider can choose his/her own definition of popularity. You can let it be known that you are a liberal prescription writer and fill your practice with drug-seeking patients. Or you could promote customer-friendly schedules and behaviors in your office staff. And, of course, you can simply exude an aura of caring, which has always been an effective practice-building tool.
On the other hand, you may believe that you have more patients than you can handle. You may fear that growing your practice runs the risk of putting the quality of your patients’ care and your own physical and mental health at risk.
Theoretically, you could keep your panel size unchanged and increase your productivity to enhance your value and therefore your compensation. In the next part of this miniseries we’ll look at the stumbling blocks that can make increasing productivity difficult.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
In my last column, I began to explore the factors affecting the compensation of primary care providers (PCPs). I described two apparent economic paradoxes. First, while most healthcare systems consider their primary care segments as loss leaders, they continue to seek and hire more PCPs. The second is while PCPs are in short supply, most of them feel that they are underpaid. Supply and demand doesn’t seem to be making them more valuable in the economic sense. The explanations for these nonintuitive observations are first, healthcare systems need the volume of patients stored in the practices of even unprofitable primary care physicians to feed the high-profit specialties in their businesses. Second, there is a limit to how large a gap between revenue and overhead the systems can accept for their primary care practices. Not surprisingly, this means that system administrators must continue to nudge those PCP practices closer toward profitability, usually by demanding higher productivity.
As I did in my last letter, I will continue to lean on a discussion for PCP compensation by a large international management consulting firm I found on the internet. I am not condoning the consultant’s advice, but merely using it as a scaffolding on which to hang the rather squishy topics of time, clinical quality, and patient satisfaction. I only intend to ask questions, and I promise no answers.
First, let me make it clear that I am defining PCPs as providers who are on a performance-based pathway, which is by far the most prevalent model. A fixed-salary arrangement hasn’t made sense to me since I was a 17-year-old lifeguard paid by the hour for sitting by a pool. Had I been paid by the rescue, I would have finished the summer empty handed. A fixed salary provided me a sense of security, but it offered no path for advancement and was boring as hell. The primary care provider I am talking about has an interest in developing relationships with his/her patients, building a practice, and offering some degree of continuity. In other words, I am not considering providers working in walk-in clinics as PCPs.
Size Matters
My high-powered management consultant is recommending to his healthcare system management clients that they emphasize panel size component as they craft their compensation packages for PCPs. Maybe even to the point of giving it more weight than the productivity piece. This, of course, makes perfect business sense if the primary value of a PCP to the system lies in the patients he/she brings into the system.
What does this emphasis on size mean for you as a provider? If your boss is following my consultant’s advice, then you would want to be growing your panel size to improve your compensation. You could do this by a marketing plan that makes you more popular. But, I can hear you muttering that you never wanted to be a contestant in a popularity contest. Although I must say that historically this was a fact of life in any community when new providers came to town.
A provider can choose his/her own definition of popularity. You can let it be known that you are a liberal prescription writer and fill your practice with drug-seeking patients. Or you could promote customer-friendly schedules and behaviors in your office staff. And, of course, you can simply exude an aura of caring, which has always been an effective practice-building tool.
On the other hand, you may believe that you have more patients than you can handle. You may fear that growing your practice runs the risk of putting the quality of your patients’ care and your own physical and mental health at risk.
Theoretically, you could keep your panel size unchanged and increase your productivity to enhance your value and therefore your compensation. In the next part of this miniseries we’ll look at the stumbling blocks that can make increasing productivity difficult.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
COVID Vaccines and New-Onset Seizures: New Data
There is no association between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and the risk for new-onset seizure, data from a new meta-analysis of six randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) showed.
Results of the pooled analysis that included 63,500 individuals vaccinated with SARS-CoV-2 and 55,000 who received a placebo vaccine showed there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to new-onset seizures at 28- or 43-day follow-up.
Regarding new-onset seizures in the general population, there was no statistically significant difference in risk for seizure incidence among vaccinated individuals vs placebo recipients, according to our meta-analysis, wrote the investigators, led by Ali Rafati, MD, MPH, Iran University of Medical Sciences in Tehran.
The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
Mixed Results
Results from previous research have been mixed regarding the link between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and new-onset seizures, with some showing an association.
To learn more about the possible association between the vaccines and new-onset seizures, the researchers conducted a literature review and identified six RCTs that measured adverse events following SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations (including messenger RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus) vs placebo or other vaccines.
While five of the studies defined new-onset seizures according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, trial investigators in the sixth RCT assessed and determined new-onset seizures in participants.
Participants received two vaccinations 28 days apart in five RCTs and only one vaccine in the sixth trial.
The research team searched the data for new-onset seizure in the 28 days following one or both COVID vaccinations.
No Link Found
After comparing the incidence of new-onset seizure between the 63,500 vaccine (nine new-onset seizures, 0.014%) and 55,000 placebo recipients (one new-onset seizure, 0.002%), investigators found no significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio [OR], 2.70; 95% CI, 0.76-9.57; P = .12)
Investigators also sliced the data several ways to see if it would yield different results. When they analyzed data by vaccine platform (viral vector) and age group (children), they didn’t observe significant differences in new-onset data.
The researchers also searched for data beyond the month following the injection to encompass the entire blinded phase, so they analyzed the results of three RCTs that reported adverse events up to 162 days after the vaccine.
After pooling the results from the three studies, investigators found no statistical difference between the vaccine and placebo groups in terms of the new-onset seizure (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.86%-3.23; P > .99)
Study limitations included the missing information on vaccine doses or risk factors for the development of seizures. Also, the RCTs included in the meta-analysis were conducted at different times, so the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may have differed in their composition and efficacy.
“The global vaccination drive against SARS-CoV-2 has been a monumental effort in combating the pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations that are now available appear safe and appropriate,” the authors wrote.
There were no study funding sources or disclosures reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
There is no association between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and the risk for new-onset seizure, data from a new meta-analysis of six randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) showed.
Results of the pooled analysis that included 63,500 individuals vaccinated with SARS-CoV-2 and 55,000 who received a placebo vaccine showed there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to new-onset seizures at 28- or 43-day follow-up.
Regarding new-onset seizures in the general population, there was no statistically significant difference in risk for seizure incidence among vaccinated individuals vs placebo recipients, according to our meta-analysis, wrote the investigators, led by Ali Rafati, MD, MPH, Iran University of Medical Sciences in Tehran.
The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
Mixed Results
Results from previous research have been mixed regarding the link between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and new-onset seizures, with some showing an association.
To learn more about the possible association between the vaccines and new-onset seizures, the researchers conducted a literature review and identified six RCTs that measured adverse events following SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations (including messenger RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus) vs placebo or other vaccines.
While five of the studies defined new-onset seizures according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, trial investigators in the sixth RCT assessed and determined new-onset seizures in participants.
Participants received two vaccinations 28 days apart in five RCTs and only one vaccine in the sixth trial.
The research team searched the data for new-onset seizure in the 28 days following one or both COVID vaccinations.
No Link Found
After comparing the incidence of new-onset seizure between the 63,500 vaccine (nine new-onset seizures, 0.014%) and 55,000 placebo recipients (one new-onset seizure, 0.002%), investigators found no significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio [OR], 2.70; 95% CI, 0.76-9.57; P = .12)
Investigators also sliced the data several ways to see if it would yield different results. When they analyzed data by vaccine platform (viral vector) and age group (children), they didn’t observe significant differences in new-onset data.
The researchers also searched for data beyond the month following the injection to encompass the entire blinded phase, so they analyzed the results of three RCTs that reported adverse events up to 162 days after the vaccine.
After pooling the results from the three studies, investigators found no statistical difference between the vaccine and placebo groups in terms of the new-onset seizure (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.86%-3.23; P > .99)
Study limitations included the missing information on vaccine doses or risk factors for the development of seizures. Also, the RCTs included in the meta-analysis were conducted at different times, so the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may have differed in their composition and efficacy.
“The global vaccination drive against SARS-CoV-2 has been a monumental effort in combating the pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations that are now available appear safe and appropriate,” the authors wrote.
There were no study funding sources or disclosures reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
There is no association between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and the risk for new-onset seizure, data from a new meta-analysis of six randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) showed.
Results of the pooled analysis that included 63,500 individuals vaccinated with SARS-CoV-2 and 55,000 who received a placebo vaccine showed there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to new-onset seizures at 28- or 43-day follow-up.
Regarding new-onset seizures in the general population, there was no statistically significant difference in risk for seizure incidence among vaccinated individuals vs placebo recipients, according to our meta-analysis, wrote the investigators, led by Ali Rafati, MD, MPH, Iran University of Medical Sciences in Tehran.
The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
Mixed Results
Results from previous research have been mixed regarding the link between the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and new-onset seizures, with some showing an association.
To learn more about the possible association between the vaccines and new-onset seizures, the researchers conducted a literature review and identified six RCTs that measured adverse events following SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations (including messenger RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus) vs placebo or other vaccines.
While five of the studies defined new-onset seizures according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, trial investigators in the sixth RCT assessed and determined new-onset seizures in participants.
Participants received two vaccinations 28 days apart in five RCTs and only one vaccine in the sixth trial.
The research team searched the data for new-onset seizure in the 28 days following one or both COVID vaccinations.
No Link Found
After comparing the incidence of new-onset seizure between the 63,500 vaccine (nine new-onset seizures, 0.014%) and 55,000 placebo recipients (one new-onset seizure, 0.002%), investigators found no significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio [OR], 2.70; 95% CI, 0.76-9.57; P = .12)
Investigators also sliced the data several ways to see if it would yield different results. When they analyzed data by vaccine platform (viral vector) and age group (children), they didn’t observe significant differences in new-onset data.
The researchers also searched for data beyond the month following the injection to encompass the entire blinded phase, so they analyzed the results of three RCTs that reported adverse events up to 162 days after the vaccine.
After pooling the results from the three studies, investigators found no statistical difference between the vaccine and placebo groups in terms of the new-onset seizure (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.86%-3.23; P > .99)
Study limitations included the missing information on vaccine doses or risk factors for the development of seizures. Also, the RCTs included in the meta-analysis were conducted at different times, so the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may have differed in their composition and efficacy.
“The global vaccination drive against SARS-CoV-2 has been a monumental effort in combating the pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations that are now available appear safe and appropriate,” the authors wrote.
There were no study funding sources or disclosures reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A 6-Year-Old Female Presents With a Bruise-Like Lesion on the Lip, Tongue, and Chin Area Present Since Birth
Diagnosis: Venous Malformation
Although present at birth, they are not always clinically evident early in life. They also tend to grow with the child without spontaneous regression, causing potential cosmetic concerns or complications from impingement on surrounding tissue.
Venous malformations appear with a bluish color appearing beneath the skin and can vary significantly in size and severity. Venous malformations are compressible and characterized by low to stagnant blood flow, which can spontaneously thrombose. Clinically, this may cause pain, swelling, skin changes, tissue and limb overgrowth, or functional impairment depending on location and size.
Venous malformations result from disorganized angiogenesis secondary to sporadic mutations in somatic cells. The most common implicated gene is TEK, a receptor tyrosine kinase. PIK3CA has also been involved. Both genes are involved in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, which regulates cell growth, proliferation, and angiogenesis. In venous endothelial cells, abnormal angiogenesis and vessel maturation may lead to venous malformation formation. Dysplastic vessels frequently separate from normal veins but may be contiguous with the deep venous system.
Diagnosis involves clinical history and physical examination. Imaging with ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be utilized. While ultrasound may be preferred for superficial venous malformations, MRI or MRI with MR angiography (MRA) is the preferred method for venous malformation assessment. Genetic testing may be appropriate for complex malformations, as classification of lesions by underlying mutation may allow targeted therapy.
This patient’s past MRI and MRA findings were consistent with a venous malformation.
Treatment
Venous malformations rarely regress spontaneously. Treatment is required if venous malformations are symptomatic, which may include pain, swelling, deformity, thrombosis, or interference with daily activities of living. Treatment plans require consideration of patient goals of care. The main categories of therapy are embolization/sclerotherapy, surgical resection, and molecular targeted therapy.
Sclerotherapy is a well-tolerated and efficacious first-line therapy. It can be used as either nonsurgical curative therapy or preoperative adjunct therapy to minimize blood loss before surgical resection. While surgical resection may cause scarring, multimodal approaches with sclerotherapy or laser therapy can decrease complications. Molecular therapies aim to reduce vascular proliferation and symptoms. Referral to hematology/oncology for evaluation and consideration of chemotherapeutic agents may be required. Sirolimus has been shown in mice models to inhibit an endothelial cell tyrosine kinase receptor that plays a role in venous malformation growth. Multiple studies have proved its efficacy in managing complicated vascular anomalies, including venous malformations. Alpelisib is an inhibitor of PI3KCA, which is part of the pathway that contributes to venous malformation formation. Dactolisib, a dual inhibitor of the PI3KA and mTOR pathways, and rebastinib, a TEK inhibitor, are being investigated.
Differential Diagnoses
The differential diagnosis includes dermal melanocytosis, nevus of Ota, hemangioma of infancy, and ashy dermatosis. In addition, venous malformations can be part of more complex vascular malformations.
Dermal melanocytosis, also known as Mongolian spots, are blue-gray patches of discoloration on the skin that appear at birth or shortly after. They result from the arrest of dermal melanocytes in the dermis during fetal life and tissue modeling. They are commonly observed in those of Asian or African descent with darker skin types. Most often, they are located in the lumbar or sacral-gluteal region. Unlike venous malformations, they are benign and do not involve vascular abnormalities. They typically fade over time.
Nevus of Ota is a benign congenital condition that presents with blue-gray or brown patches of pigmentation on the skin around the eyes, cheeks, and forehead. They are dermal melanocytes with a speckled instead of uniform appearance. Nevus of Ota primarily affects individuals of Asian descent and typically presents in the trigeminal nerve distribution region. Treatment can be done to minimize deformity, generally with pigmented laser surgery.
Hemangiomas of infancy are common benign tumors of infancy caused by endothelial cell proliferation. They are characterized by rapid growth followed by spontaneous involution within the first year of life and for several years. Hemangiomas can be superficial, deep, or mixed with features of both superficial and deep. Superficial hemangiomas present as raised, lobulated, and bright red while deep hemangiomas present as a bluish-hued nodule, plaque, or tumor. They are diagnosed clinically but skin biopsies and imaging can confirm the suspected diagnosis. While hemangiomas may self-resolve, complicated hemangiomas can be treated with topical timolol, oral propranolol, topical and intralesional corticosteroids, pulsed-dye laser, and surgical resection.
Ashy dermatosis is a term for asymptomatic, gray-blue or ashy patches distributed symmetrically on the trunk, head, neck, and upper extremities. It primarily affects individuals with darker skin types (Fitzpatrick III-V), and is more common in patients with Hispanic, Asian, or African backgrounds. The direct cause of ashy dermatosis is unknown but it is thought to be linked to drug ingestion, genetics, infection, and immune-mediated mechanisms. The general treatment includes topical corticosteroids, clofazimine, topical calcineurin inhibitors, oral dapsone, phototherapy, topical retinoids, or isotretinoin to reduce inflammation and pigmentation.
Danny Lee and Samuel Le serve as research fellows and Jolina Bui as research associate in the Pediatric Dermatology Division of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is Distinguished Professor of Dermatology and Pediatrics and Vice-Chair of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.
Suggested Reading
Agarwal P, Patel BC. Nevus of Ota and Ito. [Updated 2023 Jul 10]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; 2024.
Dompmartin A et al. The VASCERN-VASCA Working Group Diagnostic and Management Pathways for Venous Malformations. J Vasc Anom (Phila). 2023 Mar 23;4(2):e064.
Dompmartin A et al. Venous malformation: Update on aetiopathogenesis, diagnosis and management. Phlebology. 2010 Oct;25(5):224-235.
Gupta D, Thappa DM. Mongolian spots. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2013 Jul-Aug;79(4):469-478.
Krowchuk DP et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Infantile Hemangiomas. Pediatrics. 2019 Jan;143(1):e20183475.
Nguyen K, Khachemoune A. Ashy dermatosis: A review. Dermatol Online J. 2019 May 15;25(5):13030/qt44f462s8.
Patel ND, Chong AT et al. Venous Malformations. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2022 Dec 20;39(5):498-507.
Diagnosis: Venous Malformation
Although present at birth, they are not always clinically evident early in life. They also tend to grow with the child without spontaneous regression, causing potential cosmetic concerns or complications from impingement on surrounding tissue.
Venous malformations appear with a bluish color appearing beneath the skin and can vary significantly in size and severity. Venous malformations are compressible and characterized by low to stagnant blood flow, which can spontaneously thrombose. Clinically, this may cause pain, swelling, skin changes, tissue and limb overgrowth, or functional impairment depending on location and size.
Venous malformations result from disorganized angiogenesis secondary to sporadic mutations in somatic cells. The most common implicated gene is TEK, a receptor tyrosine kinase. PIK3CA has also been involved. Both genes are involved in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, which regulates cell growth, proliferation, and angiogenesis. In venous endothelial cells, abnormal angiogenesis and vessel maturation may lead to venous malformation formation. Dysplastic vessels frequently separate from normal veins but may be contiguous with the deep venous system.
Diagnosis involves clinical history and physical examination. Imaging with ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be utilized. While ultrasound may be preferred for superficial venous malformations, MRI or MRI with MR angiography (MRA) is the preferred method for venous malformation assessment. Genetic testing may be appropriate for complex malformations, as classification of lesions by underlying mutation may allow targeted therapy.
This patient’s past MRI and MRA findings were consistent with a venous malformation.
Treatment
Venous malformations rarely regress spontaneously. Treatment is required if venous malformations are symptomatic, which may include pain, swelling, deformity, thrombosis, or interference with daily activities of living. Treatment plans require consideration of patient goals of care. The main categories of therapy are embolization/sclerotherapy, surgical resection, and molecular targeted therapy.
Sclerotherapy is a well-tolerated and efficacious first-line therapy. It can be used as either nonsurgical curative therapy or preoperative adjunct therapy to minimize blood loss before surgical resection. While surgical resection may cause scarring, multimodal approaches with sclerotherapy or laser therapy can decrease complications. Molecular therapies aim to reduce vascular proliferation and symptoms. Referral to hematology/oncology for evaluation and consideration of chemotherapeutic agents may be required. Sirolimus has been shown in mice models to inhibit an endothelial cell tyrosine kinase receptor that plays a role in venous malformation growth. Multiple studies have proved its efficacy in managing complicated vascular anomalies, including venous malformations. Alpelisib is an inhibitor of PI3KCA, which is part of the pathway that contributes to venous malformation formation. Dactolisib, a dual inhibitor of the PI3KA and mTOR pathways, and rebastinib, a TEK inhibitor, are being investigated.
Differential Diagnoses
The differential diagnosis includes dermal melanocytosis, nevus of Ota, hemangioma of infancy, and ashy dermatosis. In addition, venous malformations can be part of more complex vascular malformations.
Dermal melanocytosis, also known as Mongolian spots, are blue-gray patches of discoloration on the skin that appear at birth or shortly after. They result from the arrest of dermal melanocytes in the dermis during fetal life and tissue modeling. They are commonly observed in those of Asian or African descent with darker skin types. Most often, they are located in the lumbar or sacral-gluteal region. Unlike venous malformations, they are benign and do not involve vascular abnormalities. They typically fade over time.
Nevus of Ota is a benign congenital condition that presents with blue-gray or brown patches of pigmentation on the skin around the eyes, cheeks, and forehead. They are dermal melanocytes with a speckled instead of uniform appearance. Nevus of Ota primarily affects individuals of Asian descent and typically presents in the trigeminal nerve distribution region. Treatment can be done to minimize deformity, generally with pigmented laser surgery.
Hemangiomas of infancy are common benign tumors of infancy caused by endothelial cell proliferation. They are characterized by rapid growth followed by spontaneous involution within the first year of life and for several years. Hemangiomas can be superficial, deep, or mixed with features of both superficial and deep. Superficial hemangiomas present as raised, lobulated, and bright red while deep hemangiomas present as a bluish-hued nodule, plaque, or tumor. They are diagnosed clinically but skin biopsies and imaging can confirm the suspected diagnosis. While hemangiomas may self-resolve, complicated hemangiomas can be treated with topical timolol, oral propranolol, topical and intralesional corticosteroids, pulsed-dye laser, and surgical resection.
Ashy dermatosis is a term for asymptomatic, gray-blue or ashy patches distributed symmetrically on the trunk, head, neck, and upper extremities. It primarily affects individuals with darker skin types (Fitzpatrick III-V), and is more common in patients with Hispanic, Asian, or African backgrounds. The direct cause of ashy dermatosis is unknown but it is thought to be linked to drug ingestion, genetics, infection, and immune-mediated mechanisms. The general treatment includes topical corticosteroids, clofazimine, topical calcineurin inhibitors, oral dapsone, phototherapy, topical retinoids, or isotretinoin to reduce inflammation and pigmentation.
Danny Lee and Samuel Le serve as research fellows and Jolina Bui as research associate in the Pediatric Dermatology Division of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is Distinguished Professor of Dermatology and Pediatrics and Vice-Chair of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.
Suggested Reading
Agarwal P, Patel BC. Nevus of Ota and Ito. [Updated 2023 Jul 10]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; 2024.
Dompmartin A et al. The VASCERN-VASCA Working Group Diagnostic and Management Pathways for Venous Malformations. J Vasc Anom (Phila). 2023 Mar 23;4(2):e064.
Dompmartin A et al. Venous malformation: Update on aetiopathogenesis, diagnosis and management. Phlebology. 2010 Oct;25(5):224-235.
Gupta D, Thappa DM. Mongolian spots. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2013 Jul-Aug;79(4):469-478.
Krowchuk DP et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Infantile Hemangiomas. Pediatrics. 2019 Jan;143(1):e20183475.
Nguyen K, Khachemoune A. Ashy dermatosis: A review. Dermatol Online J. 2019 May 15;25(5):13030/qt44f462s8.
Patel ND, Chong AT et al. Venous Malformations. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2022 Dec 20;39(5):498-507.
Diagnosis: Venous Malformation
Although present at birth, they are not always clinically evident early in life. They also tend to grow with the child without spontaneous regression, causing potential cosmetic concerns or complications from impingement on surrounding tissue.
Venous malformations appear with a bluish color appearing beneath the skin and can vary significantly in size and severity. Venous malformations are compressible and characterized by low to stagnant blood flow, which can spontaneously thrombose. Clinically, this may cause pain, swelling, skin changes, tissue and limb overgrowth, or functional impairment depending on location and size.
Venous malformations result from disorganized angiogenesis secondary to sporadic mutations in somatic cells. The most common implicated gene is TEK, a receptor tyrosine kinase. PIK3CA has also been involved. Both genes are involved in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, which regulates cell growth, proliferation, and angiogenesis. In venous endothelial cells, abnormal angiogenesis and vessel maturation may lead to venous malformation formation. Dysplastic vessels frequently separate from normal veins but may be contiguous with the deep venous system.
Diagnosis involves clinical history and physical examination. Imaging with ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be utilized. While ultrasound may be preferred for superficial venous malformations, MRI or MRI with MR angiography (MRA) is the preferred method for venous malformation assessment. Genetic testing may be appropriate for complex malformations, as classification of lesions by underlying mutation may allow targeted therapy.
This patient’s past MRI and MRA findings were consistent with a venous malformation.
Treatment
Venous malformations rarely regress spontaneously. Treatment is required if venous malformations are symptomatic, which may include pain, swelling, deformity, thrombosis, or interference with daily activities of living. Treatment plans require consideration of patient goals of care. The main categories of therapy are embolization/sclerotherapy, surgical resection, and molecular targeted therapy.
Sclerotherapy is a well-tolerated and efficacious first-line therapy. It can be used as either nonsurgical curative therapy or preoperative adjunct therapy to minimize blood loss before surgical resection. While surgical resection may cause scarring, multimodal approaches with sclerotherapy or laser therapy can decrease complications. Molecular therapies aim to reduce vascular proliferation and symptoms. Referral to hematology/oncology for evaluation and consideration of chemotherapeutic agents may be required. Sirolimus has been shown in mice models to inhibit an endothelial cell tyrosine kinase receptor that plays a role in venous malformation growth. Multiple studies have proved its efficacy in managing complicated vascular anomalies, including venous malformations. Alpelisib is an inhibitor of PI3KCA, which is part of the pathway that contributes to venous malformation formation. Dactolisib, a dual inhibitor of the PI3KA and mTOR pathways, and rebastinib, a TEK inhibitor, are being investigated.
Differential Diagnoses
The differential diagnosis includes dermal melanocytosis, nevus of Ota, hemangioma of infancy, and ashy dermatosis. In addition, venous malformations can be part of more complex vascular malformations.
Dermal melanocytosis, also known as Mongolian spots, are blue-gray patches of discoloration on the skin that appear at birth or shortly after. They result from the arrest of dermal melanocytes in the dermis during fetal life and tissue modeling. They are commonly observed in those of Asian or African descent with darker skin types. Most often, they are located in the lumbar or sacral-gluteal region. Unlike venous malformations, they are benign and do not involve vascular abnormalities. They typically fade over time.
Nevus of Ota is a benign congenital condition that presents with blue-gray or brown patches of pigmentation on the skin around the eyes, cheeks, and forehead. They are dermal melanocytes with a speckled instead of uniform appearance. Nevus of Ota primarily affects individuals of Asian descent and typically presents in the trigeminal nerve distribution region. Treatment can be done to minimize deformity, generally with pigmented laser surgery.
Hemangiomas of infancy are common benign tumors of infancy caused by endothelial cell proliferation. They are characterized by rapid growth followed by spontaneous involution within the first year of life and for several years. Hemangiomas can be superficial, deep, or mixed with features of both superficial and deep. Superficial hemangiomas present as raised, lobulated, and bright red while deep hemangiomas present as a bluish-hued nodule, plaque, or tumor. They are diagnosed clinically but skin biopsies and imaging can confirm the suspected diagnosis. While hemangiomas may self-resolve, complicated hemangiomas can be treated with topical timolol, oral propranolol, topical and intralesional corticosteroids, pulsed-dye laser, and surgical resection.
Ashy dermatosis is a term for asymptomatic, gray-blue or ashy patches distributed symmetrically on the trunk, head, neck, and upper extremities. It primarily affects individuals with darker skin types (Fitzpatrick III-V), and is more common in patients with Hispanic, Asian, or African backgrounds. The direct cause of ashy dermatosis is unknown but it is thought to be linked to drug ingestion, genetics, infection, and immune-mediated mechanisms. The general treatment includes topical corticosteroids, clofazimine, topical calcineurin inhibitors, oral dapsone, phototherapy, topical retinoids, or isotretinoin to reduce inflammation and pigmentation.
Danny Lee and Samuel Le serve as research fellows and Jolina Bui as research associate in the Pediatric Dermatology Division of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is Distinguished Professor of Dermatology and Pediatrics and Vice-Chair of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.
Suggested Reading
Agarwal P, Patel BC. Nevus of Ota and Ito. [Updated 2023 Jul 10]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; 2024.
Dompmartin A et al. The VASCERN-VASCA Working Group Diagnostic and Management Pathways for Venous Malformations. J Vasc Anom (Phila). 2023 Mar 23;4(2):e064.
Dompmartin A et al. Venous malformation: Update on aetiopathogenesis, diagnosis and management. Phlebology. 2010 Oct;25(5):224-235.
Gupta D, Thappa DM. Mongolian spots. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2013 Jul-Aug;79(4):469-478.
Krowchuk DP et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Infantile Hemangiomas. Pediatrics. 2019 Jan;143(1):e20183475.
Nguyen K, Khachemoune A. Ashy dermatosis: A review. Dermatol Online J. 2019 May 15;25(5):13030/qt44f462s8.
Patel ND, Chong AT et al. Venous Malformations. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2022 Dec 20;39(5):498-507.
A 6-year-old girl presents with a bruise-like lesion on the lip, tongue, and chin area present since birth. The family states that her tongue has been increasing in size and is painful. On physical exam, she presents with left lower mucosal lip fullness and an overlying violaceous hue extending into the oral mucosa and onto the left tongue. The left portion of the dorsal tongue displays an increased thickness and bluish discoloration and there is a pink, smooth papule on the left anterolateral tongue.
Pediatrician Credibility Remains Intact in Midst of Health Misinformation
TORONTO —
Despite acknowledging that health misinformation is on the rise, “nearly all the pediatricians we surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that their patients consider them a trusted information source,” reported Elizabeth A. Gottschlich, MA, a senior research associate with the American Academy of Pediatrics, Itasca, Illinois.
These data were generated by an ongoing cohort analysis called the Pediatricians Life and Career Experience Study (PLACES). Each year, two surveys are conducted with three groups of pediatricians in this cohort. They are defined by years in which they graduated from residency (2002-2004, 2009-2011, or 2016-2018).
While the longer survey of the two captures an array of issues regarding life and practice, the shorter “checkpoint” survey addresses a high-priority topic. In 2023, it was health misinformation. The data from this survey were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
About 40% of the 2706 pediatricians who completed this particular survey (just over 65% of the participants in PLACES) were general pediatricians, 50% were pediatric subspecialists, and 10% were hospitalists.
Almost all of the survey questions were answered on a five-point Likert scale.
A Matter of Trust
According to Ms. Gottschlich, approximately 80% of pediatricians agreed or strongly agreed that misinformation is a clinical issue for them. About one third of these strongly agreed, and only 6% disagreed.
There was also strong consensus that the problem has grown worse since the start of the COVID-19 epidemic. To this statement, 70% agreed or strongly agreed and 24% did not agree or disagree. Only 4% disagreed.
However, relatively few respondents appeared to be concerned about the ability of pediatricians to address the problem of misinformation, Ms. Gottschlich reported.
When asked to respond to the statement that the “community recognizes and uses pediatricians as trusted source for health information,” 87% agreed or strongly agreed. Of the remaining, 9% did not agree or disagree, leaving just 4% that disagreed or strongly disagreed.
For a similar but slightly different question, the consensus was even greater. To the statement “patients/families in your practice seek your input as a trusted source for health information,” 94% agreed or strongly agreed.
Encountering Misinformation
The survey went on to ask pediatricians about encounters with misinformation for seven specific issues. On the five-point Likert scale, the choices ranged from a few times per year to every day.
For reproductive health, gender-affirming care, and firearm injury prevention, about 80% of respondents answered at the very low end of the scale, meaning no more than about once per month. Encounters with misinformation was slightly greater with autism; nearly one third responded that they encountered misinformation once a week or more frequently.
For all three questions regarding vaccines, the proportions climbed substantially. Of these, the COVID-19 vaccine was the most common topic of misinformation, with more than half reporting that they addressed incorrect information once a week or more. Seven percent reported this occurs daily.
Nearly 40% of pediatricians responded that they dealt with misinformation about the HPV vaccine once per week or more, while 35% reported that they encountered misinformation this frequently about routine childhood vaccines. There was a small but not necessarily trivial proportion for each of these categories of vaccine who reported that they encountered misinformation on a daily basis.
When stratified by clinical focus, the encounters varied. For the COVID-19 vaccine, general pediatricians (67%) were far more likely to report addressing misinformation on a weekly or more frequent basis than hospitalists (39%) or subspecialists (46%). They were more than twice as likely to encounter misinformation about the HPV vaccine than hospitalists or pediatric subspecialists (46%, 17%, and 19%, respectively).
When stratified by urban, suburban, or rural practice areas, differences were relatively modest. Pediatricians in urban practices were less likely to face misinformation about HPV vaccine (29% vs 44% and 48% for suburban and rural areas, respectively), while pediatricians in rural practice were more likely to face misinformation about routine childhood vaccines (60% vs 33% and 35% for urban and suburban practices, respectively).
Differences were even narrower when misinformation encounters were compared among the West, Midwest, South, and Northeast. For the threshold of once per week or more commonly, misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine was less common in the South (50% vs 55%-58% in the other areas), while misinformation about routine childhood vaccines was more commonly encountered in the West (41% vs 32%-35% in the other areas).
A Growing Problem
The confidence among pediatricians that their knowledge is valued is reassuring, according to Ms. Gottschlich, who noted that the U.S. Surgeon General declared health misinformation a serious threat to public health in 2021, but the problem of misinformation is growing, according to several sources.
One of these sources, at least in regard to adolescent health, appears to be social media, according to a recently published review article in JAMA Pediatrics. The lead author of that article, Monica L. Wang, DSc, has dual academic appointments at the Boston University School of Public Health and Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. Asked for a comment on this issue, she suggested that it might not be enough to just respond to misinformation but rather might be better to develop a dialogue that will reveal misconceptions.
“Just as they screen for preventive issues like seat belt use, sunscreen, and safe sex practices, [pediatricians should integrate] questions about health misinformation into visits, which can be a natural and effective way to encourage dialogue, proactively share accurate information, and promote well-being,” she said.
Agreeing with the premise that pediatricians are a credible source of information for parents and children, Dr. Wang very much endorses the principle that “pediatricians can play a critical role in addressing health misinformation.”
Ms. Gottschlich and Dr. Wang report no potential conflicts of interest.
TORONTO —
Despite acknowledging that health misinformation is on the rise, “nearly all the pediatricians we surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that their patients consider them a trusted information source,” reported Elizabeth A. Gottschlich, MA, a senior research associate with the American Academy of Pediatrics, Itasca, Illinois.
These data were generated by an ongoing cohort analysis called the Pediatricians Life and Career Experience Study (PLACES). Each year, two surveys are conducted with three groups of pediatricians in this cohort. They are defined by years in which they graduated from residency (2002-2004, 2009-2011, or 2016-2018).
While the longer survey of the two captures an array of issues regarding life and practice, the shorter “checkpoint” survey addresses a high-priority topic. In 2023, it was health misinformation. The data from this survey were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
About 40% of the 2706 pediatricians who completed this particular survey (just over 65% of the participants in PLACES) were general pediatricians, 50% were pediatric subspecialists, and 10% were hospitalists.
Almost all of the survey questions were answered on a five-point Likert scale.
A Matter of Trust
According to Ms. Gottschlich, approximately 80% of pediatricians agreed or strongly agreed that misinformation is a clinical issue for them. About one third of these strongly agreed, and only 6% disagreed.
There was also strong consensus that the problem has grown worse since the start of the COVID-19 epidemic. To this statement, 70% agreed or strongly agreed and 24% did not agree or disagree. Only 4% disagreed.
However, relatively few respondents appeared to be concerned about the ability of pediatricians to address the problem of misinformation, Ms. Gottschlich reported.
When asked to respond to the statement that the “community recognizes and uses pediatricians as trusted source for health information,” 87% agreed or strongly agreed. Of the remaining, 9% did not agree or disagree, leaving just 4% that disagreed or strongly disagreed.
For a similar but slightly different question, the consensus was even greater. To the statement “patients/families in your practice seek your input as a trusted source for health information,” 94% agreed or strongly agreed.
Encountering Misinformation
The survey went on to ask pediatricians about encounters with misinformation for seven specific issues. On the five-point Likert scale, the choices ranged from a few times per year to every day.
For reproductive health, gender-affirming care, and firearm injury prevention, about 80% of respondents answered at the very low end of the scale, meaning no more than about once per month. Encounters with misinformation was slightly greater with autism; nearly one third responded that they encountered misinformation once a week or more frequently.
For all three questions regarding vaccines, the proportions climbed substantially. Of these, the COVID-19 vaccine was the most common topic of misinformation, with more than half reporting that they addressed incorrect information once a week or more. Seven percent reported this occurs daily.
Nearly 40% of pediatricians responded that they dealt with misinformation about the HPV vaccine once per week or more, while 35% reported that they encountered misinformation this frequently about routine childhood vaccines. There was a small but not necessarily trivial proportion for each of these categories of vaccine who reported that they encountered misinformation on a daily basis.
When stratified by clinical focus, the encounters varied. For the COVID-19 vaccine, general pediatricians (67%) were far more likely to report addressing misinformation on a weekly or more frequent basis than hospitalists (39%) or subspecialists (46%). They were more than twice as likely to encounter misinformation about the HPV vaccine than hospitalists or pediatric subspecialists (46%, 17%, and 19%, respectively).
When stratified by urban, suburban, or rural practice areas, differences were relatively modest. Pediatricians in urban practices were less likely to face misinformation about HPV vaccine (29% vs 44% and 48% for suburban and rural areas, respectively), while pediatricians in rural practice were more likely to face misinformation about routine childhood vaccines (60% vs 33% and 35% for urban and suburban practices, respectively).
Differences were even narrower when misinformation encounters were compared among the West, Midwest, South, and Northeast. For the threshold of once per week or more commonly, misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine was less common in the South (50% vs 55%-58% in the other areas), while misinformation about routine childhood vaccines was more commonly encountered in the West (41% vs 32%-35% in the other areas).
A Growing Problem
The confidence among pediatricians that their knowledge is valued is reassuring, according to Ms. Gottschlich, who noted that the U.S. Surgeon General declared health misinformation a serious threat to public health in 2021, but the problem of misinformation is growing, according to several sources.
One of these sources, at least in regard to adolescent health, appears to be social media, according to a recently published review article in JAMA Pediatrics. The lead author of that article, Monica L. Wang, DSc, has dual academic appointments at the Boston University School of Public Health and Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. Asked for a comment on this issue, she suggested that it might not be enough to just respond to misinformation but rather might be better to develop a dialogue that will reveal misconceptions.
“Just as they screen for preventive issues like seat belt use, sunscreen, and safe sex practices, [pediatricians should integrate] questions about health misinformation into visits, which can be a natural and effective way to encourage dialogue, proactively share accurate information, and promote well-being,” she said.
Agreeing with the premise that pediatricians are a credible source of information for parents and children, Dr. Wang very much endorses the principle that “pediatricians can play a critical role in addressing health misinformation.”
Ms. Gottschlich and Dr. Wang report no potential conflicts of interest.
TORONTO —
Despite acknowledging that health misinformation is on the rise, “nearly all the pediatricians we surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that their patients consider them a trusted information source,” reported Elizabeth A. Gottschlich, MA, a senior research associate with the American Academy of Pediatrics, Itasca, Illinois.
These data were generated by an ongoing cohort analysis called the Pediatricians Life and Career Experience Study (PLACES). Each year, two surveys are conducted with three groups of pediatricians in this cohort. They are defined by years in which they graduated from residency (2002-2004, 2009-2011, or 2016-2018).
While the longer survey of the two captures an array of issues regarding life and practice, the shorter “checkpoint” survey addresses a high-priority topic. In 2023, it was health misinformation. The data from this survey were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
About 40% of the 2706 pediatricians who completed this particular survey (just over 65% of the participants in PLACES) were general pediatricians, 50% were pediatric subspecialists, and 10% were hospitalists.
Almost all of the survey questions were answered on a five-point Likert scale.
A Matter of Trust
According to Ms. Gottschlich, approximately 80% of pediatricians agreed or strongly agreed that misinformation is a clinical issue for them. About one third of these strongly agreed, and only 6% disagreed.
There was also strong consensus that the problem has grown worse since the start of the COVID-19 epidemic. To this statement, 70% agreed or strongly agreed and 24% did not agree or disagree. Only 4% disagreed.
However, relatively few respondents appeared to be concerned about the ability of pediatricians to address the problem of misinformation, Ms. Gottschlich reported.
When asked to respond to the statement that the “community recognizes and uses pediatricians as trusted source for health information,” 87% agreed or strongly agreed. Of the remaining, 9% did not agree or disagree, leaving just 4% that disagreed or strongly disagreed.
For a similar but slightly different question, the consensus was even greater. To the statement “patients/families in your practice seek your input as a trusted source for health information,” 94% agreed or strongly agreed.
Encountering Misinformation
The survey went on to ask pediatricians about encounters with misinformation for seven specific issues. On the five-point Likert scale, the choices ranged from a few times per year to every day.
For reproductive health, gender-affirming care, and firearm injury prevention, about 80% of respondents answered at the very low end of the scale, meaning no more than about once per month. Encounters with misinformation was slightly greater with autism; nearly one third responded that they encountered misinformation once a week or more frequently.
For all three questions regarding vaccines, the proportions climbed substantially. Of these, the COVID-19 vaccine was the most common topic of misinformation, with more than half reporting that they addressed incorrect information once a week or more. Seven percent reported this occurs daily.
Nearly 40% of pediatricians responded that they dealt with misinformation about the HPV vaccine once per week or more, while 35% reported that they encountered misinformation this frequently about routine childhood vaccines. There was a small but not necessarily trivial proportion for each of these categories of vaccine who reported that they encountered misinformation on a daily basis.
When stratified by clinical focus, the encounters varied. For the COVID-19 vaccine, general pediatricians (67%) were far more likely to report addressing misinformation on a weekly or more frequent basis than hospitalists (39%) or subspecialists (46%). They were more than twice as likely to encounter misinformation about the HPV vaccine than hospitalists or pediatric subspecialists (46%, 17%, and 19%, respectively).
When stratified by urban, suburban, or rural practice areas, differences were relatively modest. Pediatricians in urban practices were less likely to face misinformation about HPV vaccine (29% vs 44% and 48% for suburban and rural areas, respectively), while pediatricians in rural practice were more likely to face misinformation about routine childhood vaccines (60% vs 33% and 35% for urban and suburban practices, respectively).
Differences were even narrower when misinformation encounters were compared among the West, Midwest, South, and Northeast. For the threshold of once per week or more commonly, misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine was less common in the South (50% vs 55%-58% in the other areas), while misinformation about routine childhood vaccines was more commonly encountered in the West (41% vs 32%-35% in the other areas).
A Growing Problem
The confidence among pediatricians that their knowledge is valued is reassuring, according to Ms. Gottschlich, who noted that the U.S. Surgeon General declared health misinformation a serious threat to public health in 2021, but the problem of misinformation is growing, according to several sources.
One of these sources, at least in regard to adolescent health, appears to be social media, according to a recently published review article in JAMA Pediatrics. The lead author of that article, Monica L. Wang, DSc, has dual academic appointments at the Boston University School of Public Health and Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. Asked for a comment on this issue, she suggested that it might not be enough to just respond to misinformation but rather might be better to develop a dialogue that will reveal misconceptions.
“Just as they screen for preventive issues like seat belt use, sunscreen, and safe sex practices, [pediatricians should integrate] questions about health misinformation into visits, which can be a natural and effective way to encourage dialogue, proactively share accurate information, and promote well-being,” she said.
Agreeing with the premise that pediatricians are a credible source of information for parents and children, Dr. Wang very much endorses the principle that “pediatricians can play a critical role in addressing health misinformation.”
Ms. Gottschlich and Dr. Wang report no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM PAS 2024
The Importance of Family Therapy for Transgender Youth
Recent newspaper headlines have focused almost exclusively on gender-affirming medical interventions for transgender youth (eg, puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones like estrogen and testosterone). It is true that these are important treatments that are consistently tied to improvements in mental health. However, an additional powerful predictor of good mental health outcomes for transgender youth is parental support and acceptance.
It is essential that clinicians consider this when creating treatment plans for transgender youth. Sadly, they are often afraid to share their own struggles, despite working through these being essential for their children’s thriving and well-being. I have a few key tips for combating this issue. My upcoming book Free to Be: Understanding Kids & Gender Identity provides much more context for parents and providers, but I will highlight a few big takeaways here.
Give Parents Their Own Space
Many parents have never encountered a transgender person in their life and have a lot of questions. At times, they may be “thinking out loud” and say things in passing that aren’t their final thoughts or opinions on a matter. This can, unfortunately, be damaging to their children. I often speak with adult transgender people whose parents said something they no longer believe (eg, “being trans is just a mental illness – you need therapy to fix it”), but these comments stick in the person’s mind and drive shame and self-esteem challenges later in life, sometimes for decades. Parents need to have a safe space, with a trained professional with expertise in gender, to work through their concerns and questions away from their children, so that when they talk to their kids about gender, they are presenting their fully formed thoughts.
Validate Parents’ Difficult Experiences
As pediatric providers, we are often focused on the difficult experiences of our transgender pediatric patients. However, their parents tend to be struggling as well, and that struggling predicts adverse mental health outcomes for their children.
The most common reaction a parent has upon learning their child is transgender is fear. It’s important to validate this fear (and other feelings that come out), so that parents know they can share with you what’s really going on in their minds.
There are some common themes we see for parents. Some are big fears: fear that their child will be victimized or fear that their child will later regret taking gender-affirming hormones and blame the parents for giving permission to take them. Parents often say they had a gendered vision for what their child’s future would be like, and their child coming out as transgender changes that (it can be helpful to gently remind parents that children almost never grow up exactly how we predict).
Some themes are more mundane but nonetheless distressing for parents, such as not wanting to throw away meaningful souvenirs from past vacations that have their child’s birth name on them. Clinicians can and should validate these thoughts and feelings, while also providing additional context and education. I often recommend the book Found in Transition by Pariah Hassouri, a pediatrician who goes through many of these common struggles after her daughter comes out as transgender.
Take a Three-Stage Approach When Adolescents Are Considering Gender-Affirming Medical Interventions
We recently outlined our process for conducting a biopsychosocial assessment for adolescents considering pubertal suppression for adolescent gender dysphoria in The Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, for those who want more detail on how to conduct these assessments. On the theme of supporting parents, I would highlight the value of taking a three-stage approach. In the first stage, a clinician meets with an adolescent alone to collect their gender history and discuss important considerations regarding the medical intervention. In stage two, the same information about the medical intervention is shared with parents, along with a summary of what the adolescent shared with the clinician (with the adolescent’s consent, of course). Often there will be some areas of disconnect. We make a list of these areas of disconnect that are addressed in stage three, in which the full family is brought together to get everyone on the same page and understanding each other’s perspectives.
Common disconnects include gender dysphoria seeming to “come out of nowhere” from the parents’ perspective, necessitating the young person to recount an early life experience in which they were harassed for expressing gender nonconformity, leading them to act stereotypically in line with their sex assigned at birth for years to avoid being “outed” and harassed more. Conversations around fertility preservation can be particularly complex. Young people and their parents also sometimes have different conceptualizations of gender identity and require a shared framework for talking about gender identity (which I offer in my forthcoming book). This list of family therapy topics can be diverse and highly dependent on the family. An additional resource for this phase of the family therapy is The Family Acceptance Project, which has created culturally tailored materials to help parents understand their sexual and gender minority children.
In summary, fostering healthy family functioning is essential for the care of transgender and gender diverse youth, and parents require support in addition to their children needing support. I encourage all gender providers to incorporate the vital element of family therapy into their practice.
Dr. Turban is director of the Gender Psychiatry Program at the University of California, San Francisco, where he is an assistant professor of child & adolescent psychiatry and affiliate faculty at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. He is on X @jack_turban.
Recent newspaper headlines have focused almost exclusively on gender-affirming medical interventions for transgender youth (eg, puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones like estrogen and testosterone). It is true that these are important treatments that are consistently tied to improvements in mental health. However, an additional powerful predictor of good mental health outcomes for transgender youth is parental support and acceptance.
It is essential that clinicians consider this when creating treatment plans for transgender youth. Sadly, they are often afraid to share their own struggles, despite working through these being essential for their children’s thriving and well-being. I have a few key tips for combating this issue. My upcoming book Free to Be: Understanding Kids & Gender Identity provides much more context for parents and providers, but I will highlight a few big takeaways here.
Give Parents Their Own Space
Many parents have never encountered a transgender person in their life and have a lot of questions. At times, they may be “thinking out loud” and say things in passing that aren’t their final thoughts or opinions on a matter. This can, unfortunately, be damaging to their children. I often speak with adult transgender people whose parents said something they no longer believe (eg, “being trans is just a mental illness – you need therapy to fix it”), but these comments stick in the person’s mind and drive shame and self-esteem challenges later in life, sometimes for decades. Parents need to have a safe space, with a trained professional with expertise in gender, to work through their concerns and questions away from their children, so that when they talk to their kids about gender, they are presenting their fully formed thoughts.
Validate Parents’ Difficult Experiences
As pediatric providers, we are often focused on the difficult experiences of our transgender pediatric patients. However, their parents tend to be struggling as well, and that struggling predicts adverse mental health outcomes for their children.
The most common reaction a parent has upon learning their child is transgender is fear. It’s important to validate this fear (and other feelings that come out), so that parents know they can share with you what’s really going on in their minds.
There are some common themes we see for parents. Some are big fears: fear that their child will be victimized or fear that their child will later regret taking gender-affirming hormones and blame the parents for giving permission to take them. Parents often say they had a gendered vision for what their child’s future would be like, and their child coming out as transgender changes that (it can be helpful to gently remind parents that children almost never grow up exactly how we predict).
Some themes are more mundane but nonetheless distressing for parents, such as not wanting to throw away meaningful souvenirs from past vacations that have their child’s birth name on them. Clinicians can and should validate these thoughts and feelings, while also providing additional context and education. I often recommend the book Found in Transition by Pariah Hassouri, a pediatrician who goes through many of these common struggles after her daughter comes out as transgender.
Take a Three-Stage Approach When Adolescents Are Considering Gender-Affirming Medical Interventions
We recently outlined our process for conducting a biopsychosocial assessment for adolescents considering pubertal suppression for adolescent gender dysphoria in The Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, for those who want more detail on how to conduct these assessments. On the theme of supporting parents, I would highlight the value of taking a three-stage approach. In the first stage, a clinician meets with an adolescent alone to collect their gender history and discuss important considerations regarding the medical intervention. In stage two, the same information about the medical intervention is shared with parents, along with a summary of what the adolescent shared with the clinician (with the adolescent’s consent, of course). Often there will be some areas of disconnect. We make a list of these areas of disconnect that are addressed in stage three, in which the full family is brought together to get everyone on the same page and understanding each other’s perspectives.
Common disconnects include gender dysphoria seeming to “come out of nowhere” from the parents’ perspective, necessitating the young person to recount an early life experience in which they were harassed for expressing gender nonconformity, leading them to act stereotypically in line with their sex assigned at birth for years to avoid being “outed” and harassed more. Conversations around fertility preservation can be particularly complex. Young people and their parents also sometimes have different conceptualizations of gender identity and require a shared framework for talking about gender identity (which I offer in my forthcoming book). This list of family therapy topics can be diverse and highly dependent on the family. An additional resource for this phase of the family therapy is The Family Acceptance Project, which has created culturally tailored materials to help parents understand their sexual and gender minority children.
In summary, fostering healthy family functioning is essential for the care of transgender and gender diverse youth, and parents require support in addition to their children needing support. I encourage all gender providers to incorporate the vital element of family therapy into their practice.
Dr. Turban is director of the Gender Psychiatry Program at the University of California, San Francisco, where he is an assistant professor of child & adolescent psychiatry and affiliate faculty at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. He is on X @jack_turban.
Recent newspaper headlines have focused almost exclusively on gender-affirming medical interventions for transgender youth (eg, puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones like estrogen and testosterone). It is true that these are important treatments that are consistently tied to improvements in mental health. However, an additional powerful predictor of good mental health outcomes for transgender youth is parental support and acceptance.
It is essential that clinicians consider this when creating treatment plans for transgender youth. Sadly, they are often afraid to share their own struggles, despite working through these being essential for their children’s thriving and well-being. I have a few key tips for combating this issue. My upcoming book Free to Be: Understanding Kids & Gender Identity provides much more context for parents and providers, but I will highlight a few big takeaways here.
Give Parents Their Own Space
Many parents have never encountered a transgender person in their life and have a lot of questions. At times, they may be “thinking out loud” and say things in passing that aren’t their final thoughts or opinions on a matter. This can, unfortunately, be damaging to their children. I often speak with adult transgender people whose parents said something they no longer believe (eg, “being trans is just a mental illness – you need therapy to fix it”), but these comments stick in the person’s mind and drive shame and self-esteem challenges later in life, sometimes for decades. Parents need to have a safe space, with a trained professional with expertise in gender, to work through their concerns and questions away from their children, so that when they talk to their kids about gender, they are presenting their fully formed thoughts.
Validate Parents’ Difficult Experiences
As pediatric providers, we are often focused on the difficult experiences of our transgender pediatric patients. However, their parents tend to be struggling as well, and that struggling predicts adverse mental health outcomes for their children.
The most common reaction a parent has upon learning their child is transgender is fear. It’s important to validate this fear (and other feelings that come out), so that parents know they can share with you what’s really going on in their minds.
There are some common themes we see for parents. Some are big fears: fear that their child will be victimized or fear that their child will later regret taking gender-affirming hormones and blame the parents for giving permission to take them. Parents often say they had a gendered vision for what their child’s future would be like, and their child coming out as transgender changes that (it can be helpful to gently remind parents that children almost never grow up exactly how we predict).
Some themes are more mundane but nonetheless distressing for parents, such as not wanting to throw away meaningful souvenirs from past vacations that have their child’s birth name on them. Clinicians can and should validate these thoughts and feelings, while also providing additional context and education. I often recommend the book Found in Transition by Pariah Hassouri, a pediatrician who goes through many of these common struggles after her daughter comes out as transgender.
Take a Three-Stage Approach When Adolescents Are Considering Gender-Affirming Medical Interventions
We recently outlined our process for conducting a biopsychosocial assessment for adolescents considering pubertal suppression for adolescent gender dysphoria in The Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, for those who want more detail on how to conduct these assessments. On the theme of supporting parents, I would highlight the value of taking a three-stage approach. In the first stage, a clinician meets with an adolescent alone to collect their gender history and discuss important considerations regarding the medical intervention. In stage two, the same information about the medical intervention is shared with parents, along with a summary of what the adolescent shared with the clinician (with the adolescent’s consent, of course). Often there will be some areas of disconnect. We make a list of these areas of disconnect that are addressed in stage three, in which the full family is brought together to get everyone on the same page and understanding each other’s perspectives.
Common disconnects include gender dysphoria seeming to “come out of nowhere” from the parents’ perspective, necessitating the young person to recount an early life experience in which they were harassed for expressing gender nonconformity, leading them to act stereotypically in line with their sex assigned at birth for years to avoid being “outed” and harassed more. Conversations around fertility preservation can be particularly complex. Young people and their parents also sometimes have different conceptualizations of gender identity and require a shared framework for talking about gender identity (which I offer in my forthcoming book). This list of family therapy topics can be diverse and highly dependent on the family. An additional resource for this phase of the family therapy is The Family Acceptance Project, which has created culturally tailored materials to help parents understand their sexual and gender minority children.
In summary, fostering healthy family functioning is essential for the care of transgender and gender diverse youth, and parents require support in addition to their children needing support. I encourage all gender providers to incorporate the vital element of family therapy into their practice.
Dr. Turban is director of the Gender Psychiatry Program at the University of California, San Francisco, where he is an assistant professor of child & adolescent psychiatry and affiliate faculty at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. He is on X @jack_turban.
For Pediatric LGS, Cenobamate Shows Promise
DENVER — The conclusions were reached by comparing outcomes to patient historical data, though they were not analyzed statistically.
A Proof-of-Concept Study
In an interview, Karen Keough, MD, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, conceded the key limitation was that the researchers were not able to perform statistical analysis due to the nature of the data. “It’s just showing trends. It’s proof of concept that cenobamate can be effective in one of the most refractory forms of epilepsy, which always includes focal seizures. That’s what led to the initial FDA indication, but we also know that this medication has a lot of promise and is probably going to be effective in other forms of epilepsy and probably in other seizure types,” said Dr. Keough, who is a neurologist at Pediatrix Child Neurology Consultants of Austin, Texas.
Although she has seen significant improvements in many patients, Dr. Keough reported that most patients become refractory again. “Unfortunately, honeymoons are probably real in cenobamate. Continuing to follow those patients as I do, since they’re my own patients, I have quite a few who had more than a year of seizure freedom, [but] their seizures are back, though not as bad as they were before cenobamate. I just can’t get them back to that 100% control category. I do have a few that are still in the 100% control category, but not very many,” she said.
She also presented a retrospective chart review of 36 LGS patients between the ages of 1 and 27 years at the American Epilepsy Society in December 2023, which showed that addition of cenobamate was associated with a reduction in seizure frequency in 85% of patients. “It was a profound number of patients who had long periods of seizure freedom,” she said.
A Promising Treatment Option
Dr. Keough is considering moving cenobamate up in the treatment sequence of new LGS patients. “I don’t use cenobamate first line in anyone because we have good first-line agents for simple epilepsy in Lennox-Gastaut, but I’m bringing out cenobamate pretty early in the course, because I do think it has superior efficacy compared with most other drugs that we have available. Most of my patients are very established and they’ve seen lots of other drugs. For many patients, there are only a couple of drugs left on the list that [they] have never tried, but we’re going to put cenobamate at the top of that. For my newer diagnoses, I’m going to bring it out much earlier,” she said, though other drugs such as clobazam (Onfi) would still rank ahead of cenobamate.
The study was drawn from records of the HealthVerity Marketplace Database, which includes more than 150 commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid payers. It included 76 patients aged 17 or under who took at least one antiseizure medication between May 2020 and December 2022, and who had filled at least two prescriptions of cenobamate and had 180 or more days of medical and pharmacy enrollment. The mean age was 13.4 years (5.3% 0-5 years, 15.8% 6-11 years, 78.9% 12-17 years), and 40.8% were female. Seizure types included absence (17.1%), focal (75.0%), and generalized tonic-clonic (86.8%). All patients had a history of intractable seizures, 80.3% had a history of status epilepticus, and 28.9% had a history of infantile seizures. A little more than one fourth (27.6%) of patients had commercial insurance. In the previous 90 days, 21.1% had had an emergency room visit or in-patient hospital stay.
Common antiseizure medications taken with cenobamate included cannabidiol (n = 14), clobazam (n = 8), and levetiracetam (n = 18).
During the cenobamate treatment period, patients had a lower incidence of epilepsy-related inpatient days per year (3.36 vs 3.94), epilepsy-related ER visits per year (0.66 vs 1.19), and likelihood of requiring a new line of epilepsy therapy (35.5% vs 100%).
‘Promising’ Results, but More Research Is Needed
The fact that cenobamate was used in combination with other therapies, plus the lack of a control group, makes it difficult to determine if cenobamate was actually responsible for the improvements, according to Nassim Zecavati, MD, who was asked for comment on the study. “I think the results are promising, but there’s obviously a need for a randomized, controlled trial to understand whether it was this medication or the combination of cenobamate with [other medications]. How do we know that this isn’t a compound effect, that it’s multifactorial, and a combination of multiple medications versus the cenobamate?” she said.
Still, she noted that LGS patients are highly vulnerable to hospital admissions and status epilepticus, making the parameters examined in the study valid and important. “I think that this drug likely has a role in the treatment of patients with LGS, particularly pediatric patients. I think we just need more data,” said Dr. Zecavati, who is director of Epilepsy at the Children’s Hospital of Richmond in Virginia and associate professor of Neurology at Virginia Commonwealth University.
Dr. Keough is a speaker for SK Life Sciences. Dr. Zecavati has no relevant financial disclosures.
DENVER — The conclusions were reached by comparing outcomes to patient historical data, though they were not analyzed statistically.
A Proof-of-Concept Study
In an interview, Karen Keough, MD, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, conceded the key limitation was that the researchers were not able to perform statistical analysis due to the nature of the data. “It’s just showing trends. It’s proof of concept that cenobamate can be effective in one of the most refractory forms of epilepsy, which always includes focal seizures. That’s what led to the initial FDA indication, but we also know that this medication has a lot of promise and is probably going to be effective in other forms of epilepsy and probably in other seizure types,” said Dr. Keough, who is a neurologist at Pediatrix Child Neurology Consultants of Austin, Texas.
Although she has seen significant improvements in many patients, Dr. Keough reported that most patients become refractory again. “Unfortunately, honeymoons are probably real in cenobamate. Continuing to follow those patients as I do, since they’re my own patients, I have quite a few who had more than a year of seizure freedom, [but] their seizures are back, though not as bad as they were before cenobamate. I just can’t get them back to that 100% control category. I do have a few that are still in the 100% control category, but not very many,” she said.
She also presented a retrospective chart review of 36 LGS patients between the ages of 1 and 27 years at the American Epilepsy Society in December 2023, which showed that addition of cenobamate was associated with a reduction in seizure frequency in 85% of patients. “It was a profound number of patients who had long periods of seizure freedom,” she said.
A Promising Treatment Option
Dr. Keough is considering moving cenobamate up in the treatment sequence of new LGS patients. “I don’t use cenobamate first line in anyone because we have good first-line agents for simple epilepsy in Lennox-Gastaut, but I’m bringing out cenobamate pretty early in the course, because I do think it has superior efficacy compared with most other drugs that we have available. Most of my patients are very established and they’ve seen lots of other drugs. For many patients, there are only a couple of drugs left on the list that [they] have never tried, but we’re going to put cenobamate at the top of that. For my newer diagnoses, I’m going to bring it out much earlier,” she said, though other drugs such as clobazam (Onfi) would still rank ahead of cenobamate.
The study was drawn from records of the HealthVerity Marketplace Database, which includes more than 150 commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid payers. It included 76 patients aged 17 or under who took at least one antiseizure medication between May 2020 and December 2022, and who had filled at least two prescriptions of cenobamate and had 180 or more days of medical and pharmacy enrollment. The mean age was 13.4 years (5.3% 0-5 years, 15.8% 6-11 years, 78.9% 12-17 years), and 40.8% were female. Seizure types included absence (17.1%), focal (75.0%), and generalized tonic-clonic (86.8%). All patients had a history of intractable seizures, 80.3% had a history of status epilepticus, and 28.9% had a history of infantile seizures. A little more than one fourth (27.6%) of patients had commercial insurance. In the previous 90 days, 21.1% had had an emergency room visit or in-patient hospital stay.
Common antiseizure medications taken with cenobamate included cannabidiol (n = 14), clobazam (n = 8), and levetiracetam (n = 18).
During the cenobamate treatment period, patients had a lower incidence of epilepsy-related inpatient days per year (3.36 vs 3.94), epilepsy-related ER visits per year (0.66 vs 1.19), and likelihood of requiring a new line of epilepsy therapy (35.5% vs 100%).
‘Promising’ Results, but More Research Is Needed
The fact that cenobamate was used in combination with other therapies, plus the lack of a control group, makes it difficult to determine if cenobamate was actually responsible for the improvements, according to Nassim Zecavati, MD, who was asked for comment on the study. “I think the results are promising, but there’s obviously a need for a randomized, controlled trial to understand whether it was this medication or the combination of cenobamate with [other medications]. How do we know that this isn’t a compound effect, that it’s multifactorial, and a combination of multiple medications versus the cenobamate?” she said.
Still, she noted that LGS patients are highly vulnerable to hospital admissions and status epilepticus, making the parameters examined in the study valid and important. “I think that this drug likely has a role in the treatment of patients with LGS, particularly pediatric patients. I think we just need more data,” said Dr. Zecavati, who is director of Epilepsy at the Children’s Hospital of Richmond in Virginia and associate professor of Neurology at Virginia Commonwealth University.
Dr. Keough is a speaker for SK Life Sciences. Dr. Zecavati has no relevant financial disclosures.
DENVER — The conclusions were reached by comparing outcomes to patient historical data, though they were not analyzed statistically.
A Proof-of-Concept Study
In an interview, Karen Keough, MD, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, conceded the key limitation was that the researchers were not able to perform statistical analysis due to the nature of the data. “It’s just showing trends. It’s proof of concept that cenobamate can be effective in one of the most refractory forms of epilepsy, which always includes focal seizures. That’s what led to the initial FDA indication, but we also know that this medication has a lot of promise and is probably going to be effective in other forms of epilepsy and probably in other seizure types,” said Dr. Keough, who is a neurologist at Pediatrix Child Neurology Consultants of Austin, Texas.
Although she has seen significant improvements in many patients, Dr. Keough reported that most patients become refractory again. “Unfortunately, honeymoons are probably real in cenobamate. Continuing to follow those patients as I do, since they’re my own patients, I have quite a few who had more than a year of seizure freedom, [but] their seizures are back, though not as bad as they were before cenobamate. I just can’t get them back to that 100% control category. I do have a few that are still in the 100% control category, but not very many,” she said.
She also presented a retrospective chart review of 36 LGS patients between the ages of 1 and 27 years at the American Epilepsy Society in December 2023, which showed that addition of cenobamate was associated with a reduction in seizure frequency in 85% of patients. “It was a profound number of patients who had long periods of seizure freedom,” she said.
A Promising Treatment Option
Dr. Keough is considering moving cenobamate up in the treatment sequence of new LGS patients. “I don’t use cenobamate first line in anyone because we have good first-line agents for simple epilepsy in Lennox-Gastaut, but I’m bringing out cenobamate pretty early in the course, because I do think it has superior efficacy compared with most other drugs that we have available. Most of my patients are very established and they’ve seen lots of other drugs. For many patients, there are only a couple of drugs left on the list that [they] have never tried, but we’re going to put cenobamate at the top of that. For my newer diagnoses, I’m going to bring it out much earlier,” she said, though other drugs such as clobazam (Onfi) would still rank ahead of cenobamate.
The study was drawn from records of the HealthVerity Marketplace Database, which includes more than 150 commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid payers. It included 76 patients aged 17 or under who took at least one antiseizure medication between May 2020 and December 2022, and who had filled at least two prescriptions of cenobamate and had 180 or more days of medical and pharmacy enrollment. The mean age was 13.4 years (5.3% 0-5 years, 15.8% 6-11 years, 78.9% 12-17 years), and 40.8% were female. Seizure types included absence (17.1%), focal (75.0%), and generalized tonic-clonic (86.8%). All patients had a history of intractable seizures, 80.3% had a history of status epilepticus, and 28.9% had a history of infantile seizures. A little more than one fourth (27.6%) of patients had commercial insurance. In the previous 90 days, 21.1% had had an emergency room visit or in-patient hospital stay.
Common antiseizure medications taken with cenobamate included cannabidiol (n = 14), clobazam (n = 8), and levetiracetam (n = 18).
During the cenobamate treatment period, patients had a lower incidence of epilepsy-related inpatient days per year (3.36 vs 3.94), epilepsy-related ER visits per year (0.66 vs 1.19), and likelihood of requiring a new line of epilepsy therapy (35.5% vs 100%).
‘Promising’ Results, but More Research Is Needed
The fact that cenobamate was used in combination with other therapies, plus the lack of a control group, makes it difficult to determine if cenobamate was actually responsible for the improvements, according to Nassim Zecavati, MD, who was asked for comment on the study. “I think the results are promising, but there’s obviously a need for a randomized, controlled trial to understand whether it was this medication or the combination of cenobamate with [other medications]. How do we know that this isn’t a compound effect, that it’s multifactorial, and a combination of multiple medications versus the cenobamate?” she said.
Still, she noted that LGS patients are highly vulnerable to hospital admissions and status epilepticus, making the parameters examined in the study valid and important. “I think that this drug likely has a role in the treatment of patients with LGS, particularly pediatric patients. I think we just need more data,” said Dr. Zecavati, who is director of Epilepsy at the Children’s Hospital of Richmond in Virginia and associate professor of Neurology at Virginia Commonwealth University.
Dr. Keough is a speaker for SK Life Sciences. Dr. Zecavati has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM AAN 2024
Plastic Surgeon Illegally Restricted Negative Reviews, Judge Rules
A plastic surgeon broke federal law when he restricted patients from posting negative reviews by requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements before they received care, a district judge has ruled.
Seattle-based surgeon Javad Sajan, MD, ran afoul of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) by requiring more than 10,000 patients to sign the agreements, according to a recent decision by US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The law protects consumers’ rights to post truthful reviews about businesses.
Judge Martinez wrote that the terms of Dr. Sajan’s nondisclosure agreements “clearly include language prohibiting or restricting patients from posting negative reviews,” in violation of CRFA. Penalties for the offense will be determined at a September trial.
This news organization contacted Dr. Sajan’s office and his attorney for comment but did not get a response.
The decision is the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between Dr. Sajan and the State of Washington over whether the surgeon’s efforts to limit negative online reviews were illegal.
Beginning in 2017, Dr. Sajan and his practice, Allure Esthetic, introduced agreements that “forced” patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review, according to a 2022 lawsuit against Dr. Sajan filed by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson.
“Online reviews are often the first stop when consumers are determining who to trust,” Mr. Ferguson said in a statement. “That’s especially critical when those services deal with a patient’s health and safety. We will take action against those who illegally stop Washingtonians from sharing reviews with the public.”
If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the complaint. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents.
In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys argued the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them, which hundreds did. The CRFA requires Mr. Ferguson to prove that consumers lacked a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms, attorneys for Dr. Sajan argued in court records.
But Judge Martinez wrote that the patients who declined to sign the agreements or changed the terms represented only a “tiny fraction” of the affected patients.
The agreement language restricts patients from speaking out by forcing dissatisfied patients to work with Allure until a resolution is reached, Judge Martinez noted in his decision. “At the very least, this would delay patients from posting such reviews and force patients to interact in some way with Allure, and it certainly appears to prohibit posting reviews until Allure agrees to some kind of favorable resolution.”
Surgeon Posted Fake Positive Reviews to Counteract Bad Reviews, AG Says
Employee accounts in court documents describe a physician fixated on reviews who went to great lengths to ensure positive reviews about his work outweighed the negative.
Former employees said they were instructed to track down patients who left negative reviews and either “threaten” them to take the posts down or offer them “money” or other things, according to Mr. Ferguson’s lawsuit. If patients could not be identified, the practice would file a defamation lawsuit against the anonymous person who posted the review and use litigation to subpoena the website for the reviewer’s IP address in order to identify them, according to court documents.
Employees testified they had regular meetings to review current negative reviews and discuss what steps they were taking to get them removed. At team meetings, in-house counsel would regularly present an Excel spreadsheet with updates on progress in getting patients to remove negative reviews, according to court documents.
In addition to restricting negative reviews, Mr. Ferguson accuses Dr. Sajan of posting fake positive reviews and “buying” thousands of fake followers on social media.
At Dr. Sajan’s direction, employees created Gmail accounts using stock photos for their profile pictures and used the accounts to post fake reviews of Allure Esthetic and Dr. Sajan, according to the complaint. The practice also used members of an online forum called BlackHatWorld.com to create fake email accounts and to post fake reviews, the attorney general alleges. Many of the fake positive reviews, including the fake Google reviews, still appear on online review sites today, the attorney general contends.
Dr. Sajan and his practice also allegedly manipulated social media to appear more popular. Mr. Ferguson claims that Dr. Sajan instructed his former web designer to purchase 60,000 followers through a vendor on BlackHatWorld.com. Most of Dr. Sajan’s current Instagram followers are not real, according to Mr. Ferguson.
The practice also used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media, according to court documents.
In addition, Dr. Sajan and his practice are accused of significantly altering “before and after” photos of patients and using fake email accounts to allow the clinic to take skincare rebates intended for patients.
All of these practices violated HIPAA, the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the federal CRFA, according to Mr. Ferguson.
Surgeon Claims Competitor Behind Allegations
Attorneys for Dr. Sajan argue a competitor is behind the accusations and that other regulatory entities determined the practice did nothing wrong.
The competitor, a Seattle-based plastic surgeon, filed numerous complaints about Dr. Sajan to the Washington Medical Commission (WMC), according to court documents. The medical commission reviewed the third agreement and closed its investigation, finding that if the allegations were true, “no violation of law occurred,” court records show.
“Defendants relied upon this closing code from the WMC that the (non-disclosure) forms were lawful,” Dr. Sajan’s attorneys wrote in court documents.
The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also reviewed and audited Dr. Sajan’s use of the agreements, his attorneys noted. In a notice from OCR included in court exhibits, the agency wrote that all matters at issue have now been resolved through the practice’s voluntary compliance actions and that it was closing its investigation.
Attorneys for Dr. Sajan accuse Mr. Ferguson and state investigators of withholding the full extent of the competitor’s involvement in their investigation and failing to identify the competitor in written discovery or any of its initial disclosures. Dr. Sajan and his team discovered that the competitor was a source of key information through public records requests, according to court documents.
The remaining claims against Dr. Sajan will be addressed at trial, set for September 9, 2024.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A plastic surgeon broke federal law when he restricted patients from posting negative reviews by requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements before they received care, a district judge has ruled.
Seattle-based surgeon Javad Sajan, MD, ran afoul of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) by requiring more than 10,000 patients to sign the agreements, according to a recent decision by US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The law protects consumers’ rights to post truthful reviews about businesses.
Judge Martinez wrote that the terms of Dr. Sajan’s nondisclosure agreements “clearly include language prohibiting or restricting patients from posting negative reviews,” in violation of CRFA. Penalties for the offense will be determined at a September trial.
This news organization contacted Dr. Sajan’s office and his attorney for comment but did not get a response.
The decision is the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between Dr. Sajan and the State of Washington over whether the surgeon’s efforts to limit negative online reviews were illegal.
Beginning in 2017, Dr. Sajan and his practice, Allure Esthetic, introduced agreements that “forced” patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review, according to a 2022 lawsuit against Dr. Sajan filed by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson.
“Online reviews are often the first stop when consumers are determining who to trust,” Mr. Ferguson said in a statement. “That’s especially critical when those services deal with a patient’s health and safety. We will take action against those who illegally stop Washingtonians from sharing reviews with the public.”
If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the complaint. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents.
In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys argued the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them, which hundreds did. The CRFA requires Mr. Ferguson to prove that consumers lacked a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms, attorneys for Dr. Sajan argued in court records.
But Judge Martinez wrote that the patients who declined to sign the agreements or changed the terms represented only a “tiny fraction” of the affected patients.
The agreement language restricts patients from speaking out by forcing dissatisfied patients to work with Allure until a resolution is reached, Judge Martinez noted in his decision. “At the very least, this would delay patients from posting such reviews and force patients to interact in some way with Allure, and it certainly appears to prohibit posting reviews until Allure agrees to some kind of favorable resolution.”
Surgeon Posted Fake Positive Reviews to Counteract Bad Reviews, AG Says
Employee accounts in court documents describe a physician fixated on reviews who went to great lengths to ensure positive reviews about his work outweighed the negative.
Former employees said they were instructed to track down patients who left negative reviews and either “threaten” them to take the posts down or offer them “money” or other things, according to Mr. Ferguson’s lawsuit. If patients could not be identified, the practice would file a defamation lawsuit against the anonymous person who posted the review and use litigation to subpoena the website for the reviewer’s IP address in order to identify them, according to court documents.
Employees testified they had regular meetings to review current negative reviews and discuss what steps they were taking to get them removed. At team meetings, in-house counsel would regularly present an Excel spreadsheet with updates on progress in getting patients to remove negative reviews, according to court documents.
In addition to restricting negative reviews, Mr. Ferguson accuses Dr. Sajan of posting fake positive reviews and “buying” thousands of fake followers on social media.
At Dr. Sajan’s direction, employees created Gmail accounts using stock photos for their profile pictures and used the accounts to post fake reviews of Allure Esthetic and Dr. Sajan, according to the complaint. The practice also used members of an online forum called BlackHatWorld.com to create fake email accounts and to post fake reviews, the attorney general alleges. Many of the fake positive reviews, including the fake Google reviews, still appear on online review sites today, the attorney general contends.
Dr. Sajan and his practice also allegedly manipulated social media to appear more popular. Mr. Ferguson claims that Dr. Sajan instructed his former web designer to purchase 60,000 followers through a vendor on BlackHatWorld.com. Most of Dr. Sajan’s current Instagram followers are not real, according to Mr. Ferguson.
The practice also used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media, according to court documents.
In addition, Dr. Sajan and his practice are accused of significantly altering “before and after” photos of patients and using fake email accounts to allow the clinic to take skincare rebates intended for patients.
All of these practices violated HIPAA, the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the federal CRFA, according to Mr. Ferguson.
Surgeon Claims Competitor Behind Allegations
Attorneys for Dr. Sajan argue a competitor is behind the accusations and that other regulatory entities determined the practice did nothing wrong.
The competitor, a Seattle-based plastic surgeon, filed numerous complaints about Dr. Sajan to the Washington Medical Commission (WMC), according to court documents. The medical commission reviewed the third agreement and closed its investigation, finding that if the allegations were true, “no violation of law occurred,” court records show.
“Defendants relied upon this closing code from the WMC that the (non-disclosure) forms were lawful,” Dr. Sajan’s attorneys wrote in court documents.
The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also reviewed and audited Dr. Sajan’s use of the agreements, his attorneys noted. In a notice from OCR included in court exhibits, the agency wrote that all matters at issue have now been resolved through the practice’s voluntary compliance actions and that it was closing its investigation.
Attorneys for Dr. Sajan accuse Mr. Ferguson and state investigators of withholding the full extent of the competitor’s involvement in their investigation and failing to identify the competitor in written discovery or any of its initial disclosures. Dr. Sajan and his team discovered that the competitor was a source of key information through public records requests, according to court documents.
The remaining claims against Dr. Sajan will be addressed at trial, set for September 9, 2024.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A plastic surgeon broke federal law when he restricted patients from posting negative reviews by requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements before they received care, a district judge has ruled.
Seattle-based surgeon Javad Sajan, MD, ran afoul of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) by requiring more than 10,000 patients to sign the agreements, according to a recent decision by US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The law protects consumers’ rights to post truthful reviews about businesses.
Judge Martinez wrote that the terms of Dr. Sajan’s nondisclosure agreements “clearly include language prohibiting or restricting patients from posting negative reviews,” in violation of CRFA. Penalties for the offense will be determined at a September trial.
This news organization contacted Dr. Sajan’s office and his attorney for comment but did not get a response.
The decision is the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between Dr. Sajan and the State of Washington over whether the surgeon’s efforts to limit negative online reviews were illegal.
Beginning in 2017, Dr. Sajan and his practice, Allure Esthetic, introduced agreements that “forced” patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review, according to a 2022 lawsuit against Dr. Sajan filed by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson.
“Online reviews are often the first stop when consumers are determining who to trust,” Mr. Ferguson said in a statement. “That’s especially critical when those services deal with a patient’s health and safety. We will take action against those who illegally stop Washingtonians from sharing reviews with the public.”
If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the complaint. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents.
In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys argued the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them, which hundreds did. The CRFA requires Mr. Ferguson to prove that consumers lacked a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms, attorneys for Dr. Sajan argued in court records.
But Judge Martinez wrote that the patients who declined to sign the agreements or changed the terms represented only a “tiny fraction” of the affected patients.
The agreement language restricts patients from speaking out by forcing dissatisfied patients to work with Allure until a resolution is reached, Judge Martinez noted in his decision. “At the very least, this would delay patients from posting such reviews and force patients to interact in some way with Allure, and it certainly appears to prohibit posting reviews until Allure agrees to some kind of favorable resolution.”
Surgeon Posted Fake Positive Reviews to Counteract Bad Reviews, AG Says
Employee accounts in court documents describe a physician fixated on reviews who went to great lengths to ensure positive reviews about his work outweighed the negative.
Former employees said they were instructed to track down patients who left negative reviews and either “threaten” them to take the posts down or offer them “money” or other things, according to Mr. Ferguson’s lawsuit. If patients could not be identified, the practice would file a defamation lawsuit against the anonymous person who posted the review and use litigation to subpoena the website for the reviewer’s IP address in order to identify them, according to court documents.
Employees testified they had regular meetings to review current negative reviews and discuss what steps they were taking to get them removed. At team meetings, in-house counsel would regularly present an Excel spreadsheet with updates on progress in getting patients to remove negative reviews, according to court documents.
In addition to restricting negative reviews, Mr. Ferguson accuses Dr. Sajan of posting fake positive reviews and “buying” thousands of fake followers on social media.
At Dr. Sajan’s direction, employees created Gmail accounts using stock photos for their profile pictures and used the accounts to post fake reviews of Allure Esthetic and Dr. Sajan, according to the complaint. The practice also used members of an online forum called BlackHatWorld.com to create fake email accounts and to post fake reviews, the attorney general alleges. Many of the fake positive reviews, including the fake Google reviews, still appear on online review sites today, the attorney general contends.
Dr. Sajan and his practice also allegedly manipulated social media to appear more popular. Mr. Ferguson claims that Dr. Sajan instructed his former web designer to purchase 60,000 followers through a vendor on BlackHatWorld.com. Most of Dr. Sajan’s current Instagram followers are not real, according to Mr. Ferguson.
The practice also used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media, according to court documents.
In addition, Dr. Sajan and his practice are accused of significantly altering “before and after” photos of patients and using fake email accounts to allow the clinic to take skincare rebates intended for patients.
All of these practices violated HIPAA, the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the federal CRFA, according to Mr. Ferguson.
Surgeon Claims Competitor Behind Allegations
Attorneys for Dr. Sajan argue a competitor is behind the accusations and that other regulatory entities determined the practice did nothing wrong.
The competitor, a Seattle-based plastic surgeon, filed numerous complaints about Dr. Sajan to the Washington Medical Commission (WMC), according to court documents. The medical commission reviewed the third agreement and closed its investigation, finding that if the allegations were true, “no violation of law occurred,” court records show.
“Defendants relied upon this closing code from the WMC that the (non-disclosure) forms were lawful,” Dr. Sajan’s attorneys wrote in court documents.
The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also reviewed and audited Dr. Sajan’s use of the agreements, his attorneys noted. In a notice from OCR included in court exhibits, the agency wrote that all matters at issue have now been resolved through the practice’s voluntary compliance actions and that it was closing its investigation.
Attorneys for Dr. Sajan accuse Mr. Ferguson and state investigators of withholding the full extent of the competitor’s involvement in their investigation and failing to identify the competitor in written discovery or any of its initial disclosures. Dr. Sajan and his team discovered that the competitor was a source of key information through public records requests, according to court documents.
The remaining claims against Dr. Sajan will be addressed at trial, set for September 9, 2024.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Docs Vent As Feds Investigate Private Equity, Consolidation in Medicine
As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.
“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia.
“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”
The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.
The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.
Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.
Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.
Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour.
A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD.
While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view.
“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.
Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”
The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.
“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire.
Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”
Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”
“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC.
The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.
“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia.
“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”
The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.
The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.
Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.
Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.
Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour.
A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD.
While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view.
“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.
Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”
The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.
“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire.
Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”
Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”
“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC.
The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.
“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia.
“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”
The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.
The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.
Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.
Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.
Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour.
A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD.
While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view.
“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.
Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”
The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.
“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire.
Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”
Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”
“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC.
The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.