MDedge Pediatrics

No matter how much we’d like to leave it in the dust, COVID-19 remains prevalent and potent. Tens of thousands of people still contract COVID per week in the United States. Hundreds die. And those who don’t may still develop long COVID.

Pleas from public health officials for people to get a COVID vaccine or booster shot have been ignored by many people. About 80% of eligible Americans haven’t taken any kind of COVID booster. Meantime, the virus continues to mutate, eroding the efficacy of the vaccine’s past versions.

How to get more people to get the jab? Vaccine hesitancy, said infectious disease specialist William Schaffner, MD, is likely rooted in a lack of trust in authority, whether it’s public health officials or politicians.

Dr. Schaffner, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, and former medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, recommended five strategies physicians can try when discussing the importance of staying up to date on COVID vaccines with patients.
 

#1: Be Patient With Your Patient

First and foremost, if doctors are feeling reluctance from their patients, they need to know “what they shouldn’t do,” Dr. Schaffner said.

When a patient initially doesn’t want the vaccine, doctors shouldn’t express surprise. “Do not scold or berate or belittle. Do not give the impression the patient is somehow wrong or has failed a test of some sort,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Step back and affirm that they understand what the patient is saying so they feel reassured, even if they don’t agree or it’s based on falsehoods about the vaccine.

He said patients need to feel “the doctor heard them; it’s okay to tell the doctor this.” When you affirm what the patient says, it puts them at ease and provides a smoother road to eventually getting them to say “yes.”

But if there’s still a roadblock, don’t bulldoze them. “You don’t want to punish the patient ... let them know you’ll continue to hear them,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

#2: Always Acknowledge a Concern

Fear of side effects is great among some patients, even if the risks are low, Dr. Schaffner said. Patients may be hesitant because they’re afraid they’ll become one of the “two or three in a million” who suffer extremely rare side effects from the vaccine, Dr. Schaffner said.

In that case, doctors should acknowledge their concern is valid, he said. Never be dismissive. Ask the patients how they feel about the vaccine, listen to their responses, and let them know “I hear you. This is a new mRNA vaccine…you have concern about that,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors can segue into how there’s little reason to wait for some elusive perfectly risk-free vaccine when they can help themselves right now.

“The adverse events that occur with vaccines occur within 2 months [and are typically mild]. I don’t know of a single vaccine that has genuinely long-term implications,” Dr. Schaffner said. “We should remember that old French philosopher Voltaire. He admonished us: Waiting for perfection is the great enemy of the current good.”
 

#3: Make a Strong Recommendation

Here’s something that may seem obvious: Don’t treat the vaccine as an afterthought. “Survey after survey tells us this ... it has everything to do with the strength of the recommendation,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors typically make strong treatment recommendations such conditions as diabetes or high blood pressure, but “when it comes to vaccines, they’re often rather nonchalant,” he said.

If a patient is eligible for a vaccine, doctors should tell the patient they need to get it — not that you think they should get it. “Doctors have to make a firm recommendation: ‘You’re eligible for a vaccine ... and you need to get it ... you’ll receive it on your way out.’ It then becomes a distinct and strong recommendation,” he said.
 

#4: Appeal to Patients’ Hearts, Not Their Minds

In the opening of Charles Dickens’s novel “Hard Times,” the stern school superintendent, Mr. Gradgrind, scolds his students by beating their brow with the notion that, “Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else and root out everything else.”

The idea that facts alone can sway a vaccine-resistant patient is wrong. “It often doesn’t happen that way,” Dr. Schaffner said. “I don’t think facts do that. Psychologists tell us, yes, information is important, but it’s rarely sufficient to change behavior.”

Data and studies are foundational to medicine, but the key is to change how a patient feels about the data they’re presented with, not how they think about it. “Don’t attack their brain so much but their heart,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Dr. Schaffner has stressed with his patients that the COVID vaccine has become “the social norm,” suggesting virtually everyone he knows has received it and had no problem.

Once questions have been answered about whether the vaccine works and its various side effects, doctors could remind the patient, “You know, everyone in my office is getting the vaccine, and we’re trying to provide this protection to every patient,” he said.

You’re then delving deeper into their emotions and crossing a barrier that facts alone can’t breach.
 

#5: Make it Personal

Lead by example and personalize the fight against the virus. This allows doctors to act as if they’re building an alliance with their patients by framing the vaccine not as something that only affects them but can also confer benefits to a broader social circle.

Even after using these methods, patients may remain resistant, apprehensive, or even indifferent. In cases like these, Dr. Schaffner said it’s a good idea to let it go for the time being.

Let the patient know they “have access to you and can keep speaking with you about it” in the future, he said. “It takes more time, and you have to be cognizant of the nature of the conversation.”

Everybody is unique, but with trust, patience, and awareness of the patient’s feelings, doctors have a better shot at finding common ground with their patients and convincing them the vaccine is in their best interest, he said.

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

No matter how much we’d like to leave it in the dust, COVID-19 remains prevalent and potent. Tens of thousands of people still contract COVID per week in the United States. Hundreds die. And those who don’t may still develop long COVID.

Pleas from public health officials for people to get a COVID vaccine or booster shot have been ignored by many people. About 80% of eligible Americans haven’t taken any kind of COVID booster. Meantime, the virus continues to mutate, eroding the efficacy of the vaccine’s past versions.

How to get more people to get the jab? Vaccine hesitancy, said infectious disease specialist William Schaffner, MD, is likely rooted in a lack of trust in authority, whether it’s public health officials or politicians.

Dr. Schaffner, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, and former medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, recommended five strategies physicians can try when discussing the importance of staying up to date on COVID vaccines with patients.
 

#1: Be Patient With Your Patient

First and foremost, if doctors are feeling reluctance from their patients, they need to know “what they shouldn’t do,” Dr. Schaffner said.

When a patient initially doesn’t want the vaccine, doctors shouldn’t express surprise. “Do not scold or berate or belittle. Do not give the impression the patient is somehow wrong or has failed a test of some sort,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Step back and affirm that they understand what the patient is saying so they feel reassured, even if they don’t agree or it’s based on falsehoods about the vaccine.

He said patients need to feel “the doctor heard them; it’s okay to tell the doctor this.” When you affirm what the patient says, it puts them at ease and provides a smoother road to eventually getting them to say “yes.”

But if there’s still a roadblock, don’t bulldoze them. “You don’t want to punish the patient ... let them know you’ll continue to hear them,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

#2: Always Acknowledge a Concern

Fear of side effects is great among some patients, even if the risks are low, Dr. Schaffner said. Patients may be hesitant because they’re afraid they’ll become one of the “two or three in a million” who suffer extremely rare side effects from the vaccine, Dr. Schaffner said.

In that case, doctors should acknowledge their concern is valid, he said. Never be dismissive. Ask the patients how they feel about the vaccine, listen to their responses, and let them know “I hear you. This is a new mRNA vaccine…you have concern about that,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors can segue into how there’s little reason to wait for some elusive perfectly risk-free vaccine when they can help themselves right now.

“The adverse events that occur with vaccines occur within 2 months [and are typically mild]. I don’t know of a single vaccine that has genuinely long-term implications,” Dr. Schaffner said. “We should remember that old French philosopher Voltaire. He admonished us: Waiting for perfection is the great enemy of the current good.”
 

#3: Make a Strong Recommendation

Here’s something that may seem obvious: Don’t treat the vaccine as an afterthought. “Survey after survey tells us this ... it has everything to do with the strength of the recommendation,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors typically make strong treatment recommendations such conditions as diabetes or high blood pressure, but “when it comes to vaccines, they’re often rather nonchalant,” he said.

If a patient is eligible for a vaccine, doctors should tell the patient they need to get it — not that you think they should get it. “Doctors have to make a firm recommendation: ‘You’re eligible for a vaccine ... and you need to get it ... you’ll receive it on your way out.’ It then becomes a distinct and strong recommendation,” he said.
 

#4: Appeal to Patients’ Hearts, Not Their Minds

In the opening of Charles Dickens’s novel “Hard Times,” the stern school superintendent, Mr. Gradgrind, scolds his students by beating their brow with the notion that, “Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else and root out everything else.”

The idea that facts alone can sway a vaccine-resistant patient is wrong. “It often doesn’t happen that way,” Dr. Schaffner said. “I don’t think facts do that. Psychologists tell us, yes, information is important, but it’s rarely sufficient to change behavior.”

Data and studies are foundational to medicine, but the key is to change how a patient feels about the data they’re presented with, not how they think about it. “Don’t attack their brain so much but their heart,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Dr. Schaffner has stressed with his patients that the COVID vaccine has become “the social norm,” suggesting virtually everyone he knows has received it and had no problem.

Once questions have been answered about whether the vaccine works and its various side effects, doctors could remind the patient, “You know, everyone in my office is getting the vaccine, and we’re trying to provide this protection to every patient,” he said.

You’re then delving deeper into their emotions and crossing a barrier that facts alone can’t breach.
 

#5: Make it Personal

Lead by example and personalize the fight against the virus. This allows doctors to act as if they’re building an alliance with their patients by framing the vaccine not as something that only affects them but can also confer benefits to a broader social circle.

Even after using these methods, patients may remain resistant, apprehensive, or even indifferent. In cases like these, Dr. Schaffner said it’s a good idea to let it go for the time being.

Let the patient know they “have access to you and can keep speaking with you about it” in the future, he said. “It takes more time, and you have to be cognizant of the nature of the conversation.”

Everybody is unique, but with trust, patience, and awareness of the patient’s feelings, doctors have a better shot at finding common ground with their patients and convincing them the vaccine is in their best interest, he said.

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

No matter how much we’d like to leave it in the dust, COVID-19 remains prevalent and potent. Tens of thousands of people still contract COVID per week in the United States. Hundreds die. And those who don’t may still develop long COVID.

Pleas from public health officials for people to get a COVID vaccine or booster shot have been ignored by many people. About 80% of eligible Americans haven’t taken any kind of COVID booster. Meantime, the virus continues to mutate, eroding the efficacy of the vaccine’s past versions.

How to get more people to get the jab? Vaccine hesitancy, said infectious disease specialist William Schaffner, MD, is likely rooted in a lack of trust in authority, whether it’s public health officials or politicians.

Dr. Schaffner, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, and former medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, recommended five strategies physicians can try when discussing the importance of staying up to date on COVID vaccines with patients.
 

#1: Be Patient With Your Patient

First and foremost, if doctors are feeling reluctance from their patients, they need to know “what they shouldn’t do,” Dr. Schaffner said.

When a patient initially doesn’t want the vaccine, doctors shouldn’t express surprise. “Do not scold or berate or belittle. Do not give the impression the patient is somehow wrong or has failed a test of some sort,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Step back and affirm that they understand what the patient is saying so they feel reassured, even if they don’t agree or it’s based on falsehoods about the vaccine.

He said patients need to feel “the doctor heard them; it’s okay to tell the doctor this.” When you affirm what the patient says, it puts them at ease and provides a smoother road to eventually getting them to say “yes.”

But if there’s still a roadblock, don’t bulldoze them. “You don’t want to punish the patient ... let them know you’ll continue to hear them,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

#2: Always Acknowledge a Concern

Fear of side effects is great among some patients, even if the risks are low, Dr. Schaffner said. Patients may be hesitant because they’re afraid they’ll become one of the “two or three in a million” who suffer extremely rare side effects from the vaccine, Dr. Schaffner said.

In that case, doctors should acknowledge their concern is valid, he said. Never be dismissive. Ask the patients how they feel about the vaccine, listen to their responses, and let them know “I hear you. This is a new mRNA vaccine…you have concern about that,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors can segue into how there’s little reason to wait for some elusive perfectly risk-free vaccine when they can help themselves right now.

“The adverse events that occur with vaccines occur within 2 months [and are typically mild]. I don’t know of a single vaccine that has genuinely long-term implications,” Dr. Schaffner said. “We should remember that old French philosopher Voltaire. He admonished us: Waiting for perfection is the great enemy of the current good.”
 

#3: Make a Strong Recommendation

Here’s something that may seem obvious: Don’t treat the vaccine as an afterthought. “Survey after survey tells us this ... it has everything to do with the strength of the recommendation,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors typically make strong treatment recommendations such conditions as diabetes or high blood pressure, but “when it comes to vaccines, they’re often rather nonchalant,” he said.

If a patient is eligible for a vaccine, doctors should tell the patient they need to get it — not that you think they should get it. “Doctors have to make a firm recommendation: ‘You’re eligible for a vaccine ... and you need to get it ... you’ll receive it on your way out.’ It then becomes a distinct and strong recommendation,” he said.
 

#4: Appeal to Patients’ Hearts, Not Their Minds

In the opening of Charles Dickens’s novel “Hard Times,” the stern school superintendent, Mr. Gradgrind, scolds his students by beating their brow with the notion that, “Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else and root out everything else.”

The idea that facts alone can sway a vaccine-resistant patient is wrong. “It often doesn’t happen that way,” Dr. Schaffner said. “I don’t think facts do that. Psychologists tell us, yes, information is important, but it’s rarely sufficient to change behavior.”

Data and studies are foundational to medicine, but the key is to change how a patient feels about the data they’re presented with, not how they think about it. “Don’t attack their brain so much but their heart,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Dr. Schaffner has stressed with his patients that the COVID vaccine has become “the social norm,” suggesting virtually everyone he knows has received it and had no problem.

Once questions have been answered about whether the vaccine works and its various side effects, doctors could remind the patient, “You know, everyone in my office is getting the vaccine, and we’re trying to provide this protection to every patient,” he said.

You’re then delving deeper into their emotions and crossing a barrier that facts alone can’t breach.
 

#5: Make it Personal

Lead by example and personalize the fight against the virus. This allows doctors to act as if they’re building an alliance with their patients by framing the vaccine not as something that only affects them but can also confer benefits to a broader social circle.

Even after using these methods, patients may remain resistant, apprehensive, or even indifferent. In cases like these, Dr. Schaffner said it’s a good idea to let it go for the time being.

Let the patient know they “have access to you and can keep speaking with you about it” in the future, he said. “It takes more time, and you have to be cognizant of the nature of the conversation.”

Everybody is unique, but with trust, patience, and awareness of the patient’s feelings, doctors have a better shot at finding common ground with their patients and convincing them the vaccine is in their best interest, he said.

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

For Courtney Stinson, ensuring her daughter’s comfort is a constant battle against the challenges of congenital myopathy. At 9 years old, she relies on a ventilator to breathe, has multiple respiratory treatments daily, and is under the constant care of rotating skilled caregivers. Last year alone, she endured 36 doctor appointments.

To ease her daughter’s struggles with sleep, and after consulting a pediatrician, Ms. Stinson turned to melatonin, a hormone naturally produced by the body to manage sleep. She gave her daughter a low dose of melatonin and saw significant improvement in her ability to settle down, especially when her mind raced.

“She would have such a hard time sleeping when everything is swirling in her head,” said Ms. Stinson, a mother of two who lives in Milan, Michigan. “It’s really been helpful when her brain is moving 100 miles an hour.”

Melatonin is sold without a prescription as a sleep aid in the form of a supplement. For some parents, especially those whose children have complex needs, melatonin can be a valuable resource — but the rise in melatonin across otherwise healthy populations has had its consequences, too, according to pediatric sleep experts. 

Recent data from the CDC illustrates one of these drawbacks: a significant surge in accidental melatonin ingestion among young children over the past 2 decades.

Between 2012 and 2021, poison center calls related to pediatric melatonin exposures skyrocketed by 530%, while emergency department visits for unsupervised melatonin ingestion by infants and young children surged by 420% from 2009 to 2020, according to the CDC report.

Between 2019 and 2022, an estimated 10,930 emergency room visits were linked to 295 cases of children under the age of 6 ingesting melatonin. These incidents accounted for 7.1% of all emergency department visits for medication exposures in this age group, according to the report.

The share of U.S. adults using melatonin increased from 0.4% during 1999 to 2000 to 2.1% during 2017 to 2018.

Doctors say the escalating number of melatonin-related incidents underscores the need for increased awareness and safety measures to protect young children from unintentional overdose, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, and confusion.

“I do think there is a safe way to use it in certain children, but it should only be used under the guidance of a physician,” said Laura Sterni, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Pediatric Sleep Center. “There are dangers to using it without that guidance.”
 

Almost 1 in 5 Children Use Melatonin 

Nearly 1 in 5 school-age children and preteens take melatonin for sleep, according to research published last year in JAMA Pediatrics, which also found that 18% of children between 5 and 9 take the supplement.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine issued a warning in 2022 advising parents to approach the sleep aid with caution. 

“While melatonin can be useful in treating certain sleep-wake disorders, like jet lag, there is much less evidence it can help healthy children or adults fall asleep faster,” M. Adeel Rishi, MD, vice chair of the Academy of Sleep Medicine’s Public Safety Committee, warned on the academy’s site. “Instead of turning to melatonin, parents should work on encouraging their children to develop good sleep habits, like setting a regular bedtime and wake time, having a bedtime routine, and limiting screen time as bedtime approaches.”
 

What’s the Best Way to Give Kids Melatonin?

Melatonin has been found to work well for children with attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, or other conditions like blindness that can hinder the development of a normal circadian rhythm. 

But beyond consulting a pediatrician, caregivers whose children are otherwise healthy should consider trying other approaches to sleep disruption first, Dr. Sterni said, and things like proper sleep hygiene and anxiety should be addressed first. 

“Most sleep problems in children really should be managed with behavioral therapy alone,” she said. “To first pull out a medication to treat that I think is the wrong approach.”

Sterni also recommends starting with the lowest dose possible, which is 0.5 milligrams, with the help of pediatrician. It should be taken 1 to 2 hours before bedtime and 2 hours after their last meal, she said. 

But she notes that because melatonin is sold as a supplement and is not regulated by the FDA, it is impossible to know the exact amount in each dose.

According to JAMA, out of 25 supplements of melatonin, most of the products contained up to 50% more melatonin than what was listed.
 

Dangers of Keeping It Within Reach 

One of the biggest dangers for children is that melatonin is often sold in the form of gummies or chewable tablets — things that appeal to children, said Jenna Wheeler, MD, a pediatric critical care doctor at Orlando Health Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children. 

Because it is sold as a supplement, there are no child-safe packaging requirements. 

“From a critical care standpoint, just remember to keep it up high, not on the nightstand or in a drawer,” Dr. Wheeler said. “A child may eat the whole bottle, thinking, ‘This is just like fruits snacks.’ ”

She noted that the amount people need is often lower than what they buy at the store, and that regardless of whether it is used in proper amounts, it is not meant to be a long-term supplement — for adults or for children.

“Like with anything that’s out there, it’s all about how it’s used,” Dr. Wheeler said. “The problem is when kids get into it accidentally or when it’s not used appropriately.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

For Courtney Stinson, ensuring her daughter’s comfort is a constant battle against the challenges of congenital myopathy. At 9 years old, she relies on a ventilator to breathe, has multiple respiratory treatments daily, and is under the constant care of rotating skilled caregivers. Last year alone, she endured 36 doctor appointments.

To ease her daughter’s struggles with sleep, and after consulting a pediatrician, Ms. Stinson turned to melatonin, a hormone naturally produced by the body to manage sleep. She gave her daughter a low dose of melatonin and saw significant improvement in her ability to settle down, especially when her mind raced.

“She would have such a hard time sleeping when everything is swirling in her head,” said Ms. Stinson, a mother of two who lives in Milan, Michigan. “It’s really been helpful when her brain is moving 100 miles an hour.”

Melatonin is sold without a prescription as a sleep aid in the form of a supplement. For some parents, especially those whose children have complex needs, melatonin can be a valuable resource — but the rise in melatonin across otherwise healthy populations has had its consequences, too, according to pediatric sleep experts. 

Recent data from the CDC illustrates one of these drawbacks: a significant surge in accidental melatonin ingestion among young children over the past 2 decades.

Between 2012 and 2021, poison center calls related to pediatric melatonin exposures skyrocketed by 530%, while emergency department visits for unsupervised melatonin ingestion by infants and young children surged by 420% from 2009 to 2020, according to the CDC report.

Between 2019 and 2022, an estimated 10,930 emergency room visits were linked to 295 cases of children under the age of 6 ingesting melatonin. These incidents accounted for 7.1% of all emergency department visits for medication exposures in this age group, according to the report.

The share of U.S. adults using melatonin increased from 0.4% during 1999 to 2000 to 2.1% during 2017 to 2018.

Doctors say the escalating number of melatonin-related incidents underscores the need for increased awareness and safety measures to protect young children from unintentional overdose, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, and confusion.

“I do think there is a safe way to use it in certain children, but it should only be used under the guidance of a physician,” said Laura Sterni, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Pediatric Sleep Center. “There are dangers to using it without that guidance.”
 

Almost 1 in 5 Children Use Melatonin 

Nearly 1 in 5 school-age children and preteens take melatonin for sleep, according to research published last year in JAMA Pediatrics, which also found that 18% of children between 5 and 9 take the supplement.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine issued a warning in 2022 advising parents to approach the sleep aid with caution. 

“While melatonin can be useful in treating certain sleep-wake disorders, like jet lag, there is much less evidence it can help healthy children or adults fall asleep faster,” M. Adeel Rishi, MD, vice chair of the Academy of Sleep Medicine’s Public Safety Committee, warned on the academy’s site. “Instead of turning to melatonin, parents should work on encouraging their children to develop good sleep habits, like setting a regular bedtime and wake time, having a bedtime routine, and limiting screen time as bedtime approaches.”
 

What’s the Best Way to Give Kids Melatonin?

Melatonin has been found to work well for children with attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, or other conditions like blindness that can hinder the development of a normal circadian rhythm. 

But beyond consulting a pediatrician, caregivers whose children are otherwise healthy should consider trying other approaches to sleep disruption first, Dr. Sterni said, and things like proper sleep hygiene and anxiety should be addressed first. 

“Most sleep problems in children really should be managed with behavioral therapy alone,” she said. “To first pull out a medication to treat that I think is the wrong approach.”

Sterni also recommends starting with the lowest dose possible, which is 0.5 milligrams, with the help of pediatrician. It should be taken 1 to 2 hours before bedtime and 2 hours after their last meal, she said. 

But she notes that because melatonin is sold as a supplement and is not regulated by the FDA, it is impossible to know the exact amount in each dose.

According to JAMA, out of 25 supplements of melatonin, most of the products contained up to 50% more melatonin than what was listed.
 

Dangers of Keeping It Within Reach 

One of the biggest dangers for children is that melatonin is often sold in the form of gummies or chewable tablets — things that appeal to children, said Jenna Wheeler, MD, a pediatric critical care doctor at Orlando Health Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children. 

Because it is sold as a supplement, there are no child-safe packaging requirements. 

“From a critical care standpoint, just remember to keep it up high, not on the nightstand or in a drawer,” Dr. Wheeler said. “A child may eat the whole bottle, thinking, ‘This is just like fruits snacks.’ ”

She noted that the amount people need is often lower than what they buy at the store, and that regardless of whether it is used in proper amounts, it is not meant to be a long-term supplement — for adults or for children.

“Like with anything that’s out there, it’s all about how it’s used,” Dr. Wheeler said. “The problem is when kids get into it accidentally or when it’s not used appropriately.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

For Courtney Stinson, ensuring her daughter’s comfort is a constant battle against the challenges of congenital myopathy. At 9 years old, she relies on a ventilator to breathe, has multiple respiratory treatments daily, and is under the constant care of rotating skilled caregivers. Last year alone, she endured 36 doctor appointments.

To ease her daughter’s struggles with sleep, and after consulting a pediatrician, Ms. Stinson turned to melatonin, a hormone naturally produced by the body to manage sleep. She gave her daughter a low dose of melatonin and saw significant improvement in her ability to settle down, especially when her mind raced.

“She would have such a hard time sleeping when everything is swirling in her head,” said Ms. Stinson, a mother of two who lives in Milan, Michigan. “It’s really been helpful when her brain is moving 100 miles an hour.”

Melatonin is sold without a prescription as a sleep aid in the form of a supplement. For some parents, especially those whose children have complex needs, melatonin can be a valuable resource — but the rise in melatonin across otherwise healthy populations has had its consequences, too, according to pediatric sleep experts. 

Recent data from the CDC illustrates one of these drawbacks: a significant surge in accidental melatonin ingestion among young children over the past 2 decades.

Between 2012 and 2021, poison center calls related to pediatric melatonin exposures skyrocketed by 530%, while emergency department visits for unsupervised melatonin ingestion by infants and young children surged by 420% from 2009 to 2020, according to the CDC report.

Between 2019 and 2022, an estimated 10,930 emergency room visits were linked to 295 cases of children under the age of 6 ingesting melatonin. These incidents accounted for 7.1% of all emergency department visits for medication exposures in this age group, according to the report.

The share of U.S. adults using melatonin increased from 0.4% during 1999 to 2000 to 2.1% during 2017 to 2018.

Doctors say the escalating number of melatonin-related incidents underscores the need for increased awareness and safety measures to protect young children from unintentional overdose, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, and confusion.

“I do think there is a safe way to use it in certain children, but it should only be used under the guidance of a physician,” said Laura Sterni, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Pediatric Sleep Center. “There are dangers to using it without that guidance.”
 

Almost 1 in 5 Children Use Melatonin 

Nearly 1 in 5 school-age children and preteens take melatonin for sleep, according to research published last year in JAMA Pediatrics, which also found that 18% of children between 5 and 9 take the supplement.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine issued a warning in 2022 advising parents to approach the sleep aid with caution. 

“While melatonin can be useful in treating certain sleep-wake disorders, like jet lag, there is much less evidence it can help healthy children or adults fall asleep faster,” M. Adeel Rishi, MD, vice chair of the Academy of Sleep Medicine’s Public Safety Committee, warned on the academy’s site. “Instead of turning to melatonin, parents should work on encouraging their children to develop good sleep habits, like setting a regular bedtime and wake time, having a bedtime routine, and limiting screen time as bedtime approaches.”
 

What’s the Best Way to Give Kids Melatonin?

Melatonin has been found to work well for children with attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, or other conditions like blindness that can hinder the development of a normal circadian rhythm. 

But beyond consulting a pediatrician, caregivers whose children are otherwise healthy should consider trying other approaches to sleep disruption first, Dr. Sterni said, and things like proper sleep hygiene and anxiety should be addressed first. 

“Most sleep problems in children really should be managed with behavioral therapy alone,” she said. “To first pull out a medication to treat that I think is the wrong approach.”

Sterni also recommends starting with the lowest dose possible, which is 0.5 milligrams, with the help of pediatrician. It should be taken 1 to 2 hours before bedtime and 2 hours after their last meal, she said. 

But she notes that because melatonin is sold as a supplement and is not regulated by the FDA, it is impossible to know the exact amount in each dose.

According to JAMA, out of 25 supplements of melatonin, most of the products contained up to 50% more melatonin than what was listed.
 

Dangers of Keeping It Within Reach 

One of the biggest dangers for children is that melatonin is often sold in the form of gummies or chewable tablets — things that appeal to children, said Jenna Wheeler, MD, a pediatric critical care doctor at Orlando Health Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children. 

Because it is sold as a supplement, there are no child-safe packaging requirements. 

“From a critical care standpoint, just remember to keep it up high, not on the nightstand or in a drawer,” Dr. Wheeler said. “A child may eat the whole bottle, thinking, ‘This is just like fruits snacks.’ ”

She noted that the amount people need is often lower than what they buy at the store, and that regardless of whether it is used in proper amounts, it is not meant to be a long-term supplement — for adults or for children.

“Like with anything that’s out there, it’s all about how it’s used,” Dr. Wheeler said. “The problem is when kids get into it accidentally or when it’s not used appropriately.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with a significantly increased risk for adult depressive, anxiety, and stress-related disorders, new data from a large registry study of twins showed.

Researchers found that each additional adverse event placed children at a 52% greater risk for a psychiatric disorder as an adult, with sexual abuse associated with the greatest risk.

The findings showed that the association held even after controlling for shared genetic and environmental factors.

The results suggested that “interventions targeting ACEs, including primary prevention and enhanced access to evidence-based trauma therapies to individuals who experienced ACEs, may be associated with reduced risk of future psychopathology,” the investigators, with first author Hilda Björk Daníelsdóttir, MSc, of the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland, wrote.

The findings were published online on March 6 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Dose-Dependent Effect

Previous research has shown a robust link between childhood abuse and an increased risk for psychiatric disorders in adulthood, but evidence of this association in studies that adjust for familial confounding is “completely lacking,” the investigators wrote.

To learn more about how genetic factors may affect the relationship between ACEs and later psychiatric diagnoses, the investigators used data from the nationwide Swedish Twin Registry, which includes data on more than 25,000 identical and nonidentical twins.

The twin registry is linked to the Swedish National Patient Registry, which includes information on inpatient or outpatient psychiatric diagnoses after age 19.

The twins responded to a large web-based questionnaire about past-week depressive symptoms as a measure of current mental health and distinct types of ACEs including family violence, emotional abuse or neglect, physical neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, rape, and hate crime.

Three birth cohorts from the twin registry were surveyed between 2005 and 2016 and followed up in the national registry from age 19 until the end of 2016.

Among the sample of 25,000 twin pairs (15,000 female; mean age at assessment, 29 years), 9750 (39%) participants reported exposure to at least one ACE, while 2000 (8%) reported exposure to three or more ACEs. Most respondents — 61% — reported no ACE exposure.

More than 2300 participants received a psychiatric diagnosis as an adult. The incidence of any psychiatric disorder increased from 503 individuals (6.4%) among participants without any ACEs to 993 individuals (24.6%) among those reporting three or more.

At the cohort level, a greater number of ACEs was associated with increased odds of any psychiatric disorder in a dose-dependent manner, the investigators noted (odds ratio [OR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.48-1.57).
 

Untangling Genes and Environment

To determine how much of the increased risk for adult mental illness is due to ACEs and how much can be attributed to genetics and environment, the researchers focused on twin pairs where one had exposure to one type of ACEs and the other did not. This analysis revealed that the association remained but was attenuated. In identical twins, the effect of each ACE raised the odds of having a psychiatric condition by 20% (1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40), and for nonidentical twins, the odds increased by 29% (1.29; 95% CI, 1.14-1.47).

The weakening of the risk “suggests that familial confounding contributed to the association between ACEs and adult mental health outcomes,” the authors wrote.

Of all the ACEs, sexual abuse carried the highest risk for adult psychiatric disorders. Children who were exposed to sexual abuse, compared with those who were not, had up to a 200% higher risk for any psychiatric disorder in the following comparisons: Full cohort (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.68-3.56), dizygotic twin pairs (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.33-3.32), and monozygotic twin pairs (1.80; 95% CI, 1.04-3.11).

“Our results demonstrated that familial factors contributed to a lesser extent to the association between sexual abuse and adult psychiatric disorders,” the authors wrote.

One major limitation of the study was that ACEs were based on retrospective report and thus may be subject to recall bias. Also, the findings cannot be generalized to other countries or cultures.

The study was funded by the European Research Council, the Icelandic Center for Research, and the European Union Horizon 2020. Disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with a significantly increased risk for adult depressive, anxiety, and stress-related disorders, new data from a large registry study of twins showed.

Researchers found that each additional adverse event placed children at a 52% greater risk for a psychiatric disorder as an adult, with sexual abuse associated with the greatest risk.

The findings showed that the association held even after controlling for shared genetic and environmental factors.

The results suggested that “interventions targeting ACEs, including primary prevention and enhanced access to evidence-based trauma therapies to individuals who experienced ACEs, may be associated with reduced risk of future psychopathology,” the investigators, with first author Hilda Björk Daníelsdóttir, MSc, of the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland, wrote.

The findings were published online on March 6 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Dose-Dependent Effect

Previous research has shown a robust link between childhood abuse and an increased risk for psychiatric disorders in adulthood, but evidence of this association in studies that adjust for familial confounding is “completely lacking,” the investigators wrote.

To learn more about how genetic factors may affect the relationship between ACEs and later psychiatric diagnoses, the investigators used data from the nationwide Swedish Twin Registry, which includes data on more than 25,000 identical and nonidentical twins.

The twin registry is linked to the Swedish National Patient Registry, which includes information on inpatient or outpatient psychiatric diagnoses after age 19.

The twins responded to a large web-based questionnaire about past-week depressive symptoms as a measure of current mental health and distinct types of ACEs including family violence, emotional abuse or neglect, physical neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, rape, and hate crime.

Three birth cohorts from the twin registry were surveyed between 2005 and 2016 and followed up in the national registry from age 19 until the end of 2016.

Among the sample of 25,000 twin pairs (15,000 female; mean age at assessment, 29 years), 9750 (39%) participants reported exposure to at least one ACE, while 2000 (8%) reported exposure to three or more ACEs. Most respondents — 61% — reported no ACE exposure.

More than 2300 participants received a psychiatric diagnosis as an adult. The incidence of any psychiatric disorder increased from 503 individuals (6.4%) among participants without any ACEs to 993 individuals (24.6%) among those reporting three or more.

At the cohort level, a greater number of ACEs was associated with increased odds of any psychiatric disorder in a dose-dependent manner, the investigators noted (odds ratio [OR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.48-1.57).
 

Untangling Genes and Environment

To determine how much of the increased risk for adult mental illness is due to ACEs and how much can be attributed to genetics and environment, the researchers focused on twin pairs where one had exposure to one type of ACEs and the other did not. This analysis revealed that the association remained but was attenuated. In identical twins, the effect of each ACE raised the odds of having a psychiatric condition by 20% (1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40), and for nonidentical twins, the odds increased by 29% (1.29; 95% CI, 1.14-1.47).

The weakening of the risk “suggests that familial confounding contributed to the association between ACEs and adult mental health outcomes,” the authors wrote.

Of all the ACEs, sexual abuse carried the highest risk for adult psychiatric disorders. Children who were exposed to sexual abuse, compared with those who were not, had up to a 200% higher risk for any psychiatric disorder in the following comparisons: Full cohort (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.68-3.56), dizygotic twin pairs (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.33-3.32), and monozygotic twin pairs (1.80; 95% CI, 1.04-3.11).

“Our results demonstrated that familial factors contributed to a lesser extent to the association between sexual abuse and adult psychiatric disorders,” the authors wrote.

One major limitation of the study was that ACEs were based on retrospective report and thus may be subject to recall bias. Also, the findings cannot be generalized to other countries or cultures.

The study was funded by the European Research Council, the Icelandic Center for Research, and the European Union Horizon 2020. Disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with a significantly increased risk for adult depressive, anxiety, and stress-related disorders, new data from a large registry study of twins showed.

Researchers found that each additional adverse event placed children at a 52% greater risk for a psychiatric disorder as an adult, with sexual abuse associated with the greatest risk.

The findings showed that the association held even after controlling for shared genetic and environmental factors.

The results suggested that “interventions targeting ACEs, including primary prevention and enhanced access to evidence-based trauma therapies to individuals who experienced ACEs, may be associated with reduced risk of future psychopathology,” the investigators, with first author Hilda Björk Daníelsdóttir, MSc, of the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland, wrote.

The findings were published online on March 6 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Dose-Dependent Effect

Previous research has shown a robust link between childhood abuse and an increased risk for psychiatric disorders in adulthood, but evidence of this association in studies that adjust for familial confounding is “completely lacking,” the investigators wrote.

To learn more about how genetic factors may affect the relationship between ACEs and later psychiatric diagnoses, the investigators used data from the nationwide Swedish Twin Registry, which includes data on more than 25,000 identical and nonidentical twins.

The twin registry is linked to the Swedish National Patient Registry, which includes information on inpatient or outpatient psychiatric diagnoses after age 19.

The twins responded to a large web-based questionnaire about past-week depressive symptoms as a measure of current mental health and distinct types of ACEs including family violence, emotional abuse or neglect, physical neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, rape, and hate crime.

Three birth cohorts from the twin registry were surveyed between 2005 and 2016 and followed up in the national registry from age 19 until the end of 2016.

Among the sample of 25,000 twin pairs (15,000 female; mean age at assessment, 29 years), 9750 (39%) participants reported exposure to at least one ACE, while 2000 (8%) reported exposure to three or more ACEs. Most respondents — 61% — reported no ACE exposure.

More than 2300 participants received a psychiatric diagnosis as an adult. The incidence of any psychiatric disorder increased from 503 individuals (6.4%) among participants without any ACEs to 993 individuals (24.6%) among those reporting three or more.

At the cohort level, a greater number of ACEs was associated with increased odds of any psychiatric disorder in a dose-dependent manner, the investigators noted (odds ratio [OR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.48-1.57).
 

Untangling Genes and Environment

To determine how much of the increased risk for adult mental illness is due to ACEs and how much can be attributed to genetics and environment, the researchers focused on twin pairs where one had exposure to one type of ACEs and the other did not. This analysis revealed that the association remained but was attenuated. In identical twins, the effect of each ACE raised the odds of having a psychiatric condition by 20% (1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40), and for nonidentical twins, the odds increased by 29% (1.29; 95% CI, 1.14-1.47).

The weakening of the risk “suggests that familial confounding contributed to the association between ACEs and adult mental health outcomes,” the authors wrote.

Of all the ACEs, sexual abuse carried the highest risk for adult psychiatric disorders. Children who were exposed to sexual abuse, compared with those who were not, had up to a 200% higher risk for any psychiatric disorder in the following comparisons: Full cohort (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.68-3.56), dizygotic twin pairs (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.33-3.32), and monozygotic twin pairs (1.80; 95% CI, 1.04-3.11).

“Our results demonstrated that familial factors contributed to a lesser extent to the association between sexual abuse and adult psychiatric disorders,” the authors wrote.

One major limitation of the study was that ACEs were based on retrospective report and thus may be subject to recall bias. Also, the findings cannot be generalized to other countries or cultures.

The study was funded by the European Research Council, the Icelandic Center for Research, and the European Union Horizon 2020. Disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Routine use of rapid respiratory virus testing in the emergency department (ED) appears to show limited benefit among patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a new study.

Rapid viral testing wasn’t associated with reduced antibiotic use, ED length of stay, or rates of ED return visits or hospitalization. However, testing was associated with a small increase in antiviral prescriptions and a small reduction in blood tests and chest x-rays.

“Our interest in studying the benefits of rapid viral testing in emergency departments comes from a commitment to diagnostic stewardship — ensuring that the right tests are administered to the right patients at the right time while also curbing overuse,” said lead author Tilmann Schober, MD, a resident in pediatric infectious disease at McGill University and Montreal Children’s Hospital.

“Following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have seen a surge in the availability of rapid viral testing, including molecular multiplex panels,” he said. “However, the actual impact of these advancements on patient care in the ED remains uncertain.”

The study was published online on March 4, 2024, in JAMA Internal Medicine).
 

Rapid Viral Testing

Dr. Schober and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials to understand whether rapid testing for respiratory viruses was associated with patient treatment in the ED.

In particular, the research team looked at whether testing in patients with suspected ARI was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, ED return visits, hospitalization, and increased influenza antiviral treatment.

Among the trials, seven studies included molecular testing, and eight used multiplex panels, including influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza/RSV/adenovirus/parainfluenza, or a panel of 15 or more respiratory viruses. No study evaluated testing for SARS-CoV-2. The research team reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates.

In general, routine rapid viral testing was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88) and blood tests (RR, 0.81). However, the magnitude of these effects was small. For instance, to achieve one additional viral prescription, 70 patients would need to be tested, and to save one x-ray, 30 patients would need to be tested.

“This suggests that, while statistically significant, the practical impact of these secondary outcomes may not justify the extensive effort and resources involved in widespread testing,” Dr. Schober said.

In addition, there was no association between rapid testing and antibiotic use (RR, 0.99), urine testing (RR, 0.95), ED length of stay (0 h), return visits (RR, 0.93), or hospitalization (RR, 1.01).

Notably, there was no association between rapid viral testing and antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup based on age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding, the authors said. They concluded that rapid virus testing should be reserved for patients for whom the testing will change treatment, such as high-risk patients or those with severe disease.

“It’s crucial to note that our study specifically evaluated the impact of systematic testing of patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Our findings do not advocate against rapid respiratory virus testing in general,” Dr. Schober said. “There is well-established evidence supporting the benefits of viral testing in certain contexts, such as hospitalized patients, to guide infection control practices or in specific high-risk populations.”
 

Future Research

Additional studies should look at testing among subgroups, particularly those with high-risk conditions, the study authors wrote. In addition, the research team would like to study the implementation of novel diagnostic stewardship programs as compared with well-established antibiotic stewardship programs.

“Acute respiratory tract illnesses represent one of the most common reasons for being evaluated in an acute care setting, especially in pediatrics, and these visits have traditionally resulted in excessive antibiotic prescribing, despite the etiology of the infection mostly being viral,” said Suchitra Rao, MBBS, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and associate medical director of infection prevention and control at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Dr. Rao, who wasn’t involved with this study, has surveyed ED providers about respiratory viral testing and changes in clinical decision-making. She and colleagues found that providers most commonly changed clinical decision-making while prescribing an antiviral if influenza was detected or withholding antivirals if influenza wasn’t detected.

“Multiplex testing for respiratory viruses and atypical bacteria is becoming more widespread, with newer-generation platforms having shorter turnaround times, and offers the potential to impact point-of-care decision-making,” she said. “However, these tests are expensive, and more studies are needed to explore whether respiratory pathogen panel testing in the acute care setting has an impact in terms of reduced antibiotic use as well as other outcomes, including ED visits, health-seeking behaviors, and hospitalization.”

For instance, more recent studies around SARS-CoV-2 with newer-generation panels may make a difference, as well as multiplex panels that include numerous viral targets, she said.

“Further RCTs are required to evaluate the impact of influenza/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 panels, as well as respiratory pathogen panel testing in conjunction with antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, which have been associated with improved outcomes for other rapid molecular platforms, such as blood culture identification panels,” Rao said.

The study was funded by the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Dr. Schober reported no disclosures, and several study authors reported grants or personal fees from companies outside of this research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Routine use of rapid respiratory virus testing in the emergency department (ED) appears to show limited benefit among patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a new study.

Rapid viral testing wasn’t associated with reduced antibiotic use, ED length of stay, or rates of ED return visits or hospitalization. However, testing was associated with a small increase in antiviral prescriptions and a small reduction in blood tests and chest x-rays.

“Our interest in studying the benefits of rapid viral testing in emergency departments comes from a commitment to diagnostic stewardship — ensuring that the right tests are administered to the right patients at the right time while also curbing overuse,” said lead author Tilmann Schober, MD, a resident in pediatric infectious disease at McGill University and Montreal Children’s Hospital.

“Following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have seen a surge in the availability of rapid viral testing, including molecular multiplex panels,” he said. “However, the actual impact of these advancements on patient care in the ED remains uncertain.”

The study was published online on March 4, 2024, in JAMA Internal Medicine).
 

Rapid Viral Testing

Dr. Schober and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials to understand whether rapid testing for respiratory viruses was associated with patient treatment in the ED.

In particular, the research team looked at whether testing in patients with suspected ARI was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, ED return visits, hospitalization, and increased influenza antiviral treatment.

Among the trials, seven studies included molecular testing, and eight used multiplex panels, including influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza/RSV/adenovirus/parainfluenza, or a panel of 15 or more respiratory viruses. No study evaluated testing for SARS-CoV-2. The research team reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates.

In general, routine rapid viral testing was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88) and blood tests (RR, 0.81). However, the magnitude of these effects was small. For instance, to achieve one additional viral prescription, 70 patients would need to be tested, and to save one x-ray, 30 patients would need to be tested.

“This suggests that, while statistically significant, the practical impact of these secondary outcomes may not justify the extensive effort and resources involved in widespread testing,” Dr. Schober said.

In addition, there was no association between rapid testing and antibiotic use (RR, 0.99), urine testing (RR, 0.95), ED length of stay (0 h), return visits (RR, 0.93), or hospitalization (RR, 1.01).

Notably, there was no association between rapid viral testing and antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup based on age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding, the authors said. They concluded that rapid virus testing should be reserved for patients for whom the testing will change treatment, such as high-risk patients or those with severe disease.

“It’s crucial to note that our study specifically evaluated the impact of systematic testing of patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Our findings do not advocate against rapid respiratory virus testing in general,” Dr. Schober said. “There is well-established evidence supporting the benefits of viral testing in certain contexts, such as hospitalized patients, to guide infection control practices or in specific high-risk populations.”
 

Future Research

Additional studies should look at testing among subgroups, particularly those with high-risk conditions, the study authors wrote. In addition, the research team would like to study the implementation of novel diagnostic stewardship programs as compared with well-established antibiotic stewardship programs.

“Acute respiratory tract illnesses represent one of the most common reasons for being evaluated in an acute care setting, especially in pediatrics, and these visits have traditionally resulted in excessive antibiotic prescribing, despite the etiology of the infection mostly being viral,” said Suchitra Rao, MBBS, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and associate medical director of infection prevention and control at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Dr. Rao, who wasn’t involved with this study, has surveyed ED providers about respiratory viral testing and changes in clinical decision-making. She and colleagues found that providers most commonly changed clinical decision-making while prescribing an antiviral if influenza was detected or withholding antivirals if influenza wasn’t detected.

“Multiplex testing for respiratory viruses and atypical bacteria is becoming more widespread, with newer-generation platforms having shorter turnaround times, and offers the potential to impact point-of-care decision-making,” she said. “However, these tests are expensive, and more studies are needed to explore whether respiratory pathogen panel testing in the acute care setting has an impact in terms of reduced antibiotic use as well as other outcomes, including ED visits, health-seeking behaviors, and hospitalization.”

For instance, more recent studies around SARS-CoV-2 with newer-generation panels may make a difference, as well as multiplex panels that include numerous viral targets, she said.

“Further RCTs are required to evaluate the impact of influenza/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 panels, as well as respiratory pathogen panel testing in conjunction with antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, which have been associated with improved outcomes for other rapid molecular platforms, such as blood culture identification panels,” Rao said.

The study was funded by the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Dr. Schober reported no disclosures, and several study authors reported grants or personal fees from companies outside of this research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Routine use of rapid respiratory virus testing in the emergency department (ED) appears to show limited benefit among patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a new study.

Rapid viral testing wasn’t associated with reduced antibiotic use, ED length of stay, or rates of ED return visits or hospitalization. However, testing was associated with a small increase in antiviral prescriptions and a small reduction in blood tests and chest x-rays.

“Our interest in studying the benefits of rapid viral testing in emergency departments comes from a commitment to diagnostic stewardship — ensuring that the right tests are administered to the right patients at the right time while also curbing overuse,” said lead author Tilmann Schober, MD, a resident in pediatric infectious disease at McGill University and Montreal Children’s Hospital.

“Following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have seen a surge in the availability of rapid viral testing, including molecular multiplex panels,” he said. “However, the actual impact of these advancements on patient care in the ED remains uncertain.”

The study was published online on March 4, 2024, in JAMA Internal Medicine).
 

Rapid Viral Testing

Dr. Schober and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials to understand whether rapid testing for respiratory viruses was associated with patient treatment in the ED.

In particular, the research team looked at whether testing in patients with suspected ARI was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, ED return visits, hospitalization, and increased influenza antiviral treatment.

Among the trials, seven studies included molecular testing, and eight used multiplex panels, including influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza/RSV/adenovirus/parainfluenza, or a panel of 15 or more respiratory viruses. No study evaluated testing for SARS-CoV-2. The research team reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates.

In general, routine rapid viral testing was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88) and blood tests (RR, 0.81). However, the magnitude of these effects was small. For instance, to achieve one additional viral prescription, 70 patients would need to be tested, and to save one x-ray, 30 patients would need to be tested.

“This suggests that, while statistically significant, the practical impact of these secondary outcomes may not justify the extensive effort and resources involved in widespread testing,” Dr. Schober said.

In addition, there was no association between rapid testing and antibiotic use (RR, 0.99), urine testing (RR, 0.95), ED length of stay (0 h), return visits (RR, 0.93), or hospitalization (RR, 1.01).

Notably, there was no association between rapid viral testing and antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup based on age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding, the authors said. They concluded that rapid virus testing should be reserved for patients for whom the testing will change treatment, such as high-risk patients or those with severe disease.

“It’s crucial to note that our study specifically evaluated the impact of systematic testing of patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Our findings do not advocate against rapid respiratory virus testing in general,” Dr. Schober said. “There is well-established evidence supporting the benefits of viral testing in certain contexts, such as hospitalized patients, to guide infection control practices or in specific high-risk populations.”
 

Future Research

Additional studies should look at testing among subgroups, particularly those with high-risk conditions, the study authors wrote. In addition, the research team would like to study the implementation of novel diagnostic stewardship programs as compared with well-established antibiotic stewardship programs.

“Acute respiratory tract illnesses represent one of the most common reasons for being evaluated in an acute care setting, especially in pediatrics, and these visits have traditionally resulted in excessive antibiotic prescribing, despite the etiology of the infection mostly being viral,” said Suchitra Rao, MBBS, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and associate medical director of infection prevention and control at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Dr. Rao, who wasn’t involved with this study, has surveyed ED providers about respiratory viral testing and changes in clinical decision-making. She and colleagues found that providers most commonly changed clinical decision-making while prescribing an antiviral if influenza was detected or withholding antivirals if influenza wasn’t detected.

“Multiplex testing for respiratory viruses and atypical bacteria is becoming more widespread, with newer-generation platforms having shorter turnaround times, and offers the potential to impact point-of-care decision-making,” she said. “However, these tests are expensive, and more studies are needed to explore whether respiratory pathogen panel testing in the acute care setting has an impact in terms of reduced antibiotic use as well as other outcomes, including ED visits, health-seeking behaviors, and hospitalization.”

For instance, more recent studies around SARS-CoV-2 with newer-generation panels may make a difference, as well as multiplex panels that include numerous viral targets, she said.

“Further RCTs are required to evaluate the impact of influenza/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 panels, as well as respiratory pathogen panel testing in conjunction with antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, which have been associated with improved outcomes for other rapid molecular platforms, such as blood culture identification panels,” Rao said.

The study was funded by the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Dr. Schober reported no disclosures, and several study authors reported grants or personal fees from companies outside of this research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.

Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.

Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
 

Large Language Model Used

All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.

The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.

Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.

Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
 

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)

The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
 

Quality of AI Responses

Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).

Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even ­— 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.

The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”

One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported. 

Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.

Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.

Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
 

Large Language Model Used

All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.

The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.

Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.

Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
 

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)

The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
 

Quality of AI Responses

Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).

Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even ­— 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.

The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”

One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported. 

Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.

Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.

Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
 

Large Language Model Used

All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.

The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.

Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.

Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
 

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)

The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
 

Quality of AI Responses

Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).

Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even ­— 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.

The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”

One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported. 

Medical schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives could lose federal funding under a new bill proposed this week in the US House of Representatives. 

The Embracing Anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act was introduced March 19 by North Carolina Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC3). It aims to ban what the bill describes as “race-based mandates” at medical schools. 

The legislation highlights a larger national backlash, largely led by conservatives, against considering race and ethnicity in higher education after the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action last summer. 

According to the bill’s text, medical schools must not “establish, maintain, or contract with a [DEI] office, or any other functional equivalent.” They must also agree that they will not force students or faculty to acknowledge that “America is an oppressive nation” or that “individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.” 

If H.R. 7725 passes, noncompliant medical schools would no longer receive federal funding or be eligible to participate in guaranteed student loan programs. 

Advocating for colorblind medical school admissions overlooks the racism that still exists in society, said Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, nephrologist and cofounder of the nonprofit Black Doc Village. She told this news organization that bills like H.R. 7725 distract from the real work of diversifying the physician workforce to achieve equitable care for all. 

“There’s a huge body of literature that shows when there is racial or cultural concordance, people have better satisfaction and health outcomes,” said Dr. Grubbs. “It’s really telling that the first thing the people dreaming up these bills say is that by having a diverse workforce, it automatically means that you have a less qualified workforce or that you’re lowering standards.”

The bill joins dozens of state legislative actions seeking to ban DEI principles in healthcare.

This week, Alabama legislators passed a bill prohibiting public universities from establishing DEI programs or using state money to sponsor events involving “divisive concepts.” If signed by the governor, the bill would go into effect on October 1, 2024, joining states like Tennessee and Utah with similar laws already on the books.

Industry groups are also grappling with anti-DEI sentiment. Earlier this month, the American Academy of Dermatology’s annual meeting took an unexpected turn when a member physician and 92 colleagues petitioned the academy to end its DEI programs, including scholarships and mentoring. A committee hearing the petition declined to send it to the Academy’s board.

Rep. Murphy, a urology surgeon who wrote a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, argued that DEI ideology violates freedom of speech and allows medical schools to reject candidates for not being progressive enough. In the opinion piece, he and coauthor nephrologist Stanley Goldfarb, MD, referred to DEI efforts as “quackery” and a form of discrimination. 

Dr. Goldfarb is the chairman of Do No Harm, a Virginia-based advocacy group that has pushed to eradicate “identity politics” in medical education and clinical practice. The group was instrumental in suing the Louisiana governor for a law requiring that minority candidates fill some state medical board positions. It also filed a complaint against the Medical Board of California on behalf of two physicians, claiming the state’s mandated implicit bias training for healthcare professionals violates their First Amendment rights.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning affirmative action, the American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a policy advising medical schools to consider race as a factor in admissions alongside other criteria such as test scores, grades, and interviews. The policy provides a “necessary safeguard” to diversify the physician workforce and advance health equity, the AMA said at the time. 

The Association of American Medical Colleges supports DEI principles in medical education while advocating for race-neutral admissions practices like holistic review. This method considers the whole applicant, including their experiences, attributes, academic achievements, and the value they bring to the learning environment. 

H.R. 7725 has 35 cosponsors, many of whom are physicians. Podiatrist and Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R) said in a statement that medical education should be “free of discrimination” and that the bill would prevent physicians from “being forced to pledge, affirm, or adopt tenets that have infiltrated higher education.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Medical schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives could lose federal funding under a new bill proposed this week in the US House of Representatives. 

The Embracing Anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act was introduced March 19 by North Carolina Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC3). It aims to ban what the bill describes as “race-based mandates” at medical schools. 

The legislation highlights a larger national backlash, largely led by conservatives, against considering race and ethnicity in higher education after the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action last summer. 

According to the bill’s text, medical schools must not “establish, maintain, or contract with a [DEI] office, or any other functional equivalent.” They must also agree that they will not force students or faculty to acknowledge that “America is an oppressive nation” or that “individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.” 

If H.R. 7725 passes, noncompliant medical schools would no longer receive federal funding or be eligible to participate in guaranteed student loan programs. 

Advocating for colorblind medical school admissions overlooks the racism that still exists in society, said Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, nephrologist and cofounder of the nonprofit Black Doc Village. She told this news organization that bills like H.R. 7725 distract from the real work of diversifying the physician workforce to achieve equitable care for all. 

“There’s a huge body of literature that shows when there is racial or cultural concordance, people have better satisfaction and health outcomes,” said Dr. Grubbs. “It’s really telling that the first thing the people dreaming up these bills say is that by having a diverse workforce, it automatically means that you have a less qualified workforce or that you’re lowering standards.”

The bill joins dozens of state legislative actions seeking to ban DEI principles in healthcare.

This week, Alabama legislators passed a bill prohibiting public universities from establishing DEI programs or using state money to sponsor events involving “divisive concepts.” If signed by the governor, the bill would go into effect on October 1, 2024, joining states like Tennessee and Utah with similar laws already on the books.

Industry groups are also grappling with anti-DEI sentiment. Earlier this month, the American Academy of Dermatology’s annual meeting took an unexpected turn when a member physician and 92 colleagues petitioned the academy to end its DEI programs, including scholarships and mentoring. A committee hearing the petition declined to send it to the Academy’s board.

Rep. Murphy, a urology surgeon who wrote a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, argued that DEI ideology violates freedom of speech and allows medical schools to reject candidates for not being progressive enough. In the opinion piece, he and coauthor nephrologist Stanley Goldfarb, MD, referred to DEI efforts as “quackery” and a form of discrimination. 

Dr. Goldfarb is the chairman of Do No Harm, a Virginia-based advocacy group that has pushed to eradicate “identity politics” in medical education and clinical practice. The group was instrumental in suing the Louisiana governor for a law requiring that minority candidates fill some state medical board positions. It also filed a complaint against the Medical Board of California on behalf of two physicians, claiming the state’s mandated implicit bias training for healthcare professionals violates their First Amendment rights.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning affirmative action, the American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a policy advising medical schools to consider race as a factor in admissions alongside other criteria such as test scores, grades, and interviews. The policy provides a “necessary safeguard” to diversify the physician workforce and advance health equity, the AMA said at the time. 

The Association of American Medical Colleges supports DEI principles in medical education while advocating for race-neutral admissions practices like holistic review. This method considers the whole applicant, including their experiences, attributes, academic achievements, and the value they bring to the learning environment. 

H.R. 7725 has 35 cosponsors, many of whom are physicians. Podiatrist and Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R) said in a statement that medical education should be “free of discrimination” and that the bill would prevent physicians from “being forced to pledge, affirm, or adopt tenets that have infiltrated higher education.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Medical schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives could lose federal funding under a new bill proposed this week in the US House of Representatives. 

The Embracing Anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act was introduced March 19 by North Carolina Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC3). It aims to ban what the bill describes as “race-based mandates” at medical schools. 

The legislation highlights a larger national backlash, largely led by conservatives, against considering race and ethnicity in higher education after the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action last summer. 

According to the bill’s text, medical schools must not “establish, maintain, or contract with a [DEI] office, or any other functional equivalent.” They must also agree that they will not force students or faculty to acknowledge that “America is an oppressive nation” or that “individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.” 

If H.R. 7725 passes, noncompliant medical schools would no longer receive federal funding or be eligible to participate in guaranteed student loan programs. 

Advocating for colorblind medical school admissions overlooks the racism that still exists in society, said Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, nephrologist and cofounder of the nonprofit Black Doc Village. She told this news organization that bills like H.R. 7725 distract from the real work of diversifying the physician workforce to achieve equitable care for all. 

“There’s a huge body of literature that shows when there is racial or cultural concordance, people have better satisfaction and health outcomes,” said Dr. Grubbs. “It’s really telling that the first thing the people dreaming up these bills say is that by having a diverse workforce, it automatically means that you have a less qualified workforce or that you’re lowering standards.”

The bill joins dozens of state legislative actions seeking to ban DEI principles in healthcare.

This week, Alabama legislators passed a bill prohibiting public universities from establishing DEI programs or using state money to sponsor events involving “divisive concepts.” If signed by the governor, the bill would go into effect on October 1, 2024, joining states like Tennessee and Utah with similar laws already on the books.

Industry groups are also grappling with anti-DEI sentiment. Earlier this month, the American Academy of Dermatology’s annual meeting took an unexpected turn when a member physician and 92 colleagues petitioned the academy to end its DEI programs, including scholarships and mentoring. A committee hearing the petition declined to send it to the Academy’s board.

Rep. Murphy, a urology surgeon who wrote a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, argued that DEI ideology violates freedom of speech and allows medical schools to reject candidates for not being progressive enough. In the opinion piece, he and coauthor nephrologist Stanley Goldfarb, MD, referred to DEI efforts as “quackery” and a form of discrimination. 

Dr. Goldfarb is the chairman of Do No Harm, a Virginia-based advocacy group that has pushed to eradicate “identity politics” in medical education and clinical practice. The group was instrumental in suing the Louisiana governor for a law requiring that minority candidates fill some state medical board positions. It also filed a complaint against the Medical Board of California on behalf of two physicians, claiming the state’s mandated implicit bias training for healthcare professionals violates their First Amendment rights.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning affirmative action, the American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a policy advising medical schools to consider race as a factor in admissions alongside other criteria such as test scores, grades, and interviews. The policy provides a “necessary safeguard” to diversify the physician workforce and advance health equity, the AMA said at the time. 

The Association of American Medical Colleges supports DEI principles in medical education while advocating for race-neutral admissions practices like holistic review. This method considers the whole applicant, including their experiences, attributes, academic achievements, and the value they bring to the learning environment. 

H.R. 7725 has 35 cosponsors, many of whom are physicians. Podiatrist and Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R) said in a statement that medical education should be “free of discrimination” and that the bill would prevent physicians from “being forced to pledge, affirm, or adopt tenets that have infiltrated higher education.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

SAN DIEGO — Maternal hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is associated with an increased risk for adverse birth outcomes and childhood morbidities, including respiratory, metabolic, central nervous system, and other conditions.

Those are key findings from a longitudinal cohort study that was presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“HS is associated with morbidity in women of reproductive age and adverse pregnancy outcomes, [but] its effect on offspring outcomes remains unclear,” corresponding author Kaiyang Li, a third-year medical student at McGill University, Quebec, Canada, and coauthors wrote in their abstract.

To investigate the association between maternal HS and offspring outcomes at birth and with up to 16 years of follow-up, the researchers drew from a longitudinal cohort of 1,275,593 children born in Quebec between April 1, 2006 and March 31, 2022. They matched children with their mothers and used identification numbers to follow the children to note morbidities that led to hospital admissions before age 16 years. The exposure of interest was HS, and the main outcome measure was childhood hospitalizations for respiratory, cardiovascular, metabolic, and other morbidities prior to age 16 years. 

Next, they estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs for the association of maternal HS with childhood morbidity in adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models. “As prenatal exposure to hyperandrogenism may influence boys and girls differently, we carried out subgroup analyses stratified by child sex,” they wrote. 

The study population included 1283 children whose mothers had HS and 1,274,310 unexposed children. As for infant outcomes, compared with no exposure, maternal HS was associated with an increased risk for preterm birth (relative risk [RR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1,08-1.55), neonatal death (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.03-14.13), birth defects (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.56), congenital heart defects (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.44), and orofacial defects (RR 4.29; 95% CI, 1.85-9.97).

As for long-term outcomes in the children, compared with those whose mothers did not have HS, maternal HS was associated with an increased risk for any childhood hospitalization (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.19-1.44), respiratory hospitalization (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.40), metabolic hospitalization (HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.67-4.20), gastrointestinal hospitalization (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.03-1.74), and developmental hospitalization (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.43-2.58).

Commenting on the results after the meeting, Ms. Li said that the findings support the need for timely management of HS in expectant mothers and people planning to conceive, and for “interdisciplinary care and follow up for both the mother and the baby, involving the dermatologist, the obstetrician, and the neonatologist or pediatrician if needed.”

“HS is a multidisciplinary disease, plain and simple,” Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said in an interview. “This study highlights the importance of collaboration between dermatology and obstetrician-gynecologist given the potential negative pregnancy outcomes, but to me raising alarm bells given the known gaps and delays in diagnosis matched to disease onset,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study. “We need to do better to ensure the safety of both patient and patient-to-be.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures. The abstract was selected as the second-place winner in the AAD’s poster competition. Dr. Friedman has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Maternal hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is associated with an increased risk for adverse birth outcomes and childhood morbidities, including respiratory, metabolic, central nervous system, and other conditions.

Those are key findings from a longitudinal cohort study that was presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“HS is associated with morbidity in women of reproductive age and adverse pregnancy outcomes, [but] its effect on offspring outcomes remains unclear,” corresponding author Kaiyang Li, a third-year medical student at McGill University, Quebec, Canada, and coauthors wrote in their abstract.

To investigate the association between maternal HS and offspring outcomes at birth and with up to 16 years of follow-up, the researchers drew from a longitudinal cohort of 1,275,593 children born in Quebec between April 1, 2006 and March 31, 2022. They matched children with their mothers and used identification numbers to follow the children to note morbidities that led to hospital admissions before age 16 years. The exposure of interest was HS, and the main outcome measure was childhood hospitalizations for respiratory, cardiovascular, metabolic, and other morbidities prior to age 16 years. 

Next, they estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs for the association of maternal HS with childhood morbidity in adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models. “As prenatal exposure to hyperandrogenism may influence boys and girls differently, we carried out subgroup analyses stratified by child sex,” they wrote. 

The study population included 1283 children whose mothers had HS and 1,274,310 unexposed children. As for infant outcomes, compared with no exposure, maternal HS was associated with an increased risk for preterm birth (relative risk [RR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1,08-1.55), neonatal death (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.03-14.13), birth defects (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.56), congenital heart defects (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.44), and orofacial defects (RR 4.29; 95% CI, 1.85-9.97).

As for long-term outcomes in the children, compared with those whose mothers did not have HS, maternal HS was associated with an increased risk for any childhood hospitalization (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.19-1.44), respiratory hospitalization (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.40), metabolic hospitalization (HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.67-4.20), gastrointestinal hospitalization (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.03-1.74), and developmental hospitalization (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.43-2.58).

Commenting on the results after the meeting, Ms. Li said that the findings support the need for timely management of HS in expectant mothers and people planning to conceive, and for “interdisciplinary care and follow up for both the mother and the baby, involving the dermatologist, the obstetrician, and the neonatologist or pediatrician if needed.”

“HS is a multidisciplinary disease, plain and simple,” Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said in an interview. “This study highlights the importance of collaboration between dermatology and obstetrician-gynecologist given the potential negative pregnancy outcomes, but to me raising alarm bells given the known gaps and delays in diagnosis matched to disease onset,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study. “We need to do better to ensure the safety of both patient and patient-to-be.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures. The abstract was selected as the second-place winner in the AAD’s poster competition. Dr. Friedman has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Maternal hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is associated with an increased risk for adverse birth outcomes and childhood morbidities, including respiratory, metabolic, central nervous system, and other conditions.

Those are key findings from a longitudinal cohort study that was presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“HS is associated with morbidity in women of reproductive age and adverse pregnancy outcomes, [but] its effect on offspring outcomes remains unclear,” corresponding author Kaiyang Li, a third-year medical student at McGill University, Quebec, Canada, and coauthors wrote in their abstract.

To investigate the association between maternal HS and offspring outcomes at birth and with up to 16 years of follow-up, the researchers drew from a longitudinal cohort of 1,275,593 children born in Quebec between April 1, 2006 and March 31, 2022. They matched children with their mothers and used identification numbers to follow the children to note morbidities that led to hospital admissions before age 16 years. The exposure of interest was HS, and the main outcome measure was childhood hospitalizations for respiratory, cardiovascular, metabolic, and other morbidities prior to age 16 years. 

Next, they estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs for the association of maternal HS with childhood morbidity in adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models. “As prenatal exposure to hyperandrogenism may influence boys and girls differently, we carried out subgroup analyses stratified by child sex,” they wrote. 

The study population included 1283 children whose mothers had HS and 1,274,310 unexposed children. As for infant outcomes, compared with no exposure, maternal HS was associated with an increased risk for preterm birth (relative risk [RR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1,08-1.55), neonatal death (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.03-14.13), birth defects (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.56), congenital heart defects (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.44), and orofacial defects (RR 4.29; 95% CI, 1.85-9.97).

As for long-term outcomes in the children, compared with those whose mothers did not have HS, maternal HS was associated with an increased risk for any childhood hospitalization (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.19-1.44), respiratory hospitalization (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.40), metabolic hospitalization (HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.67-4.20), gastrointestinal hospitalization (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.03-1.74), and developmental hospitalization (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.43-2.58).

Commenting on the results after the meeting, Ms. Li said that the findings support the need for timely management of HS in expectant mothers and people planning to conceive, and for “interdisciplinary care and follow up for both the mother and the baby, involving the dermatologist, the obstetrician, and the neonatologist or pediatrician if needed.”

“HS is a multidisciplinary disease, plain and simple,” Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said in an interview. “This study highlights the importance of collaboration between dermatology and obstetrician-gynecologist given the potential negative pregnancy outcomes, but to me raising alarm bells given the known gaps and delays in diagnosis matched to disease onset,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study. “We need to do better to ensure the safety of both patient and patient-to-be.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures. The abstract was selected as the second-place winner in the AAD’s poster competition. Dr. Friedman has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

TOPLINE: 

Despite the risk of worsening acne with progestin-only long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) in a study of adolescents and young adults, acne alone was not a common reason for discontinuation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Progestin-only LARC may increase the risk for acne, but this has not been well studied in adolescents and young adults.
• In the study, researchers evaluated the incidence of acne, acne as a reason for removal, and strategies used to manage acne after insertion of a progestin-only intrauterine device (IUD) or contraceptive implant in 1319 adolescents and young adults across four Adolescent Medicine LARC Collaborative study sites from January 2017 to June 2021.The mean age at insertion was 18.6 years.
• Overall, 24% of participants had acne at the time of LARC insertion.
• Worsening acne was defined as new patient reports of concern about acne, observations of acne, or addition of an acne medication after insertion; increased severity noted on an exam during follow-up or at the time of LARC removal; or acne reported as a side effect and/or reason for LARC removal.

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the study period, 376 participants (28.5%) experienced worsening acne after LARC insertion, and 17% reported acne as a new concern, with no differences between those who received an IUD or an implant.
• Only 44 of the 376 participants (11.7%) who reported worsening acne were being treated with an oral agent at follow-up.
• Of the 542 individuals (41% of the total) who had the LARC device removed, 40 (7.4%) cited concerns about acne for removing the device, although just 5 (0.92%) said that acne was the only reason for removal. Of the 40 with concerns about acne when the device was removed, 18 (45%) had documented acne at the time of insertion.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors recommend that clinicians prescribing progestin-only LARC should counsel patients that acne may be a side effect, reassuring them that if they develop acne, “it typically is not problematic enough to warrant discontinuation,” and concluded that “concerns about the development or worsening of acne should not be cause to avoid these forms of contraception.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Markus D. Boos, MD, PhD, of the division of dermatology in the Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington in Seattle and Seattle Children’s Hospital, was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Individuals without documented acne were assumed to be acne-free, creating potential bias. Acne evaluation and treatment were not standardized and were not performed by dermatologists; acne severity was not recorded for many participants, possibly underestimating severity, and excluding LARC insertions without follow-up or with removal within 8 weeks may have underestimated the percentage of participants who developed new or worsening acne.

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was supported by Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Organon and by the Health Resources and Services Administration of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Many authors received grants for this work. The authors did not disclose any other competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Despite the risk of worsening acne with progestin-only long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) in a study of adolescents and young adults, acne alone was not a common reason for discontinuation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Progestin-only LARC may increase the risk for acne, but this has not been well studied in adolescents and young adults.
• In the study, researchers evaluated the incidence of acne, acne as a reason for removal, and strategies used to manage acne after insertion of a progestin-only intrauterine device (IUD) or contraceptive implant in 1319 adolescents and young adults across four Adolescent Medicine LARC Collaborative study sites from January 2017 to June 2021.The mean age at insertion was 18.6 years.
• Overall, 24% of participants had acne at the time of LARC insertion.
• Worsening acne was defined as new patient reports of concern about acne, observations of acne, or addition of an acne medication after insertion; increased severity noted on an exam during follow-up or at the time of LARC removal; or acne reported as a side effect and/or reason for LARC removal.

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the study period, 376 participants (28.5%) experienced worsening acne after LARC insertion, and 17% reported acne as a new concern, with no differences between those who received an IUD or an implant.
• Only 44 of the 376 participants (11.7%) who reported worsening acne were being treated with an oral agent at follow-up.
• Of the 542 individuals (41% of the total) who had the LARC device removed, 40 (7.4%) cited concerns about acne for removing the device, although just 5 (0.92%) said that acne was the only reason for removal. Of the 40 with concerns about acne when the device was removed, 18 (45%) had documented acne at the time of insertion.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors recommend that clinicians prescribing progestin-only LARC should counsel patients that acne may be a side effect, reassuring them that if they develop acne, “it typically is not problematic enough to warrant discontinuation,” and concluded that “concerns about the development or worsening of acne should not be cause to avoid these forms of contraception.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Markus D. Boos, MD, PhD, of the division of dermatology in the Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington in Seattle and Seattle Children’s Hospital, was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Individuals without documented acne were assumed to be acne-free, creating potential bias. Acne evaluation and treatment were not standardized and were not performed by dermatologists; acne severity was not recorded for many participants, possibly underestimating severity, and excluding LARC insertions without follow-up or with removal within 8 weeks may have underestimated the percentage of participants who developed new or worsening acne.

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was supported by Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Organon and by the Health Resources and Services Administration of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Many authors received grants for this work. The authors did not disclose any other competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Despite the risk of worsening acne with progestin-only long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) in a study of adolescents and young adults, acne alone was not a common reason for discontinuation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Progestin-only LARC may increase the risk for acne, but this has not been well studied in adolescents and young adults.
• In the study, researchers evaluated the incidence of acne, acne as a reason for removal, and strategies used to manage acne after insertion of a progestin-only intrauterine device (IUD) or contraceptive implant in 1319 adolescents and young adults across four Adolescent Medicine LARC Collaborative study sites from January 2017 to June 2021.The mean age at insertion was 18.6 years.
• Overall, 24% of participants had acne at the time of LARC insertion.
• Worsening acne was defined as new patient reports of concern about acne, observations of acne, or addition of an acne medication after insertion; increased severity noted on an exam during follow-up or at the time of LARC removal; or acne reported as a side effect and/or reason for LARC removal.

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the study period, 376 participants (28.5%) experienced worsening acne after LARC insertion, and 17% reported acne as a new concern, with no differences between those who received an IUD or an implant.
• Only 44 of the 376 participants (11.7%) who reported worsening acne were being treated with an oral agent at follow-up.
• Of the 542 individuals (41% of the total) who had the LARC device removed, 40 (7.4%) cited concerns about acne for removing the device, although just 5 (0.92%) said that acne was the only reason for removal. Of the 40 with concerns about acne when the device was removed, 18 (45%) had documented acne at the time of insertion.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors recommend that clinicians prescribing progestin-only LARC should counsel patients that acne may be a side effect, reassuring them that if they develop acne, “it typically is not problematic enough to warrant discontinuation,” and concluded that “concerns about the development or worsening of acne should not be cause to avoid these forms of contraception.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Markus D. Boos, MD, PhD, of the division of dermatology in the Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington in Seattle and Seattle Children’s Hospital, was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Individuals without documented acne were assumed to be acne-free, creating potential bias. Acne evaluation and treatment were not standardized and were not performed by dermatologists; acne severity was not recorded for many participants, possibly underestimating severity, and excluding LARC insertions without follow-up or with removal within 8 weeks may have underestimated the percentage of participants who developed new or worsening acne.

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was supported by Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Organon and by the Health Resources and Services Administration of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Many authors received grants for this work. The authors did not disclose any other competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among adolescents with moderate to severe obesity, a nutritionally balanced, very low-calorie diet with the monitoring of a dietitian shows high adherence and safety, with significant weight loss over the course of a month and common, but mild side effects.

More research is needed to understand which patients are best suited for the diet; “however, given the associated rapid weight loss, the use of [very low-energy diets] should be emphasized in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of severe obesity and obesity-related complications in adolescents, especially before pharmacological or surgical intervention,” first author Megan Gow, PhD, of Children’s Hospital Westmead Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Westmead, Australia, said in a press statement. 

The study will be presented in May at the upcoming European Congress on Obesity, in Venice, Italy.

While very low-calorie diets have been shown to promote rapid weight loss in adolescents, research is lacking on general side effects and acceptability of the regimens. Data is also lacking on important issues including the diet’s effect on growth, heart health, and psychological wellbeing. 

To investigate, Dr. Gow and colleagues conducted a subanalysis of the 52-week Fast Track to Health study evaluating the acceptability of different dietary plans for adolescents with obesity.

The analysis included 141 adolescents between the ages of 13 and 17 years with moderate to severe obesity (average body mass index, 35 kg/m²) and at least one obesity-related complication, such as high blood pressure or insulin resistance.

The participants were placed on a nutritionally balanced very low-energy diet consisting of 800 calories per day. 

The diet involved one of two regimens — either four Optifast-formulated meal replacement products per day, including shakes, soups, bars, and/or dessert, along with low carbohydrate vegetables, such as broccoli, celery, capsicum, mushrooms, and tomatoes, with one teaspoon of vegetable oil, or a regimen of three Optifast-formulated meal replacements and one meal consisting of 100-150 g lean cooked meat, low-carbohydrate vegetables, and one teaspoon of vegetable oil.

Participants, about half of whom were women, also received dietitian support at least weekly. 

After 4 weeks, most of the adolescents, ie, 134 of the 141, with an average age of 14.9 years, completed the diet, with an average weight loss of 5.5 kg or 12 pounds (P < .001).

Most patients (95%) experienced at least one side effect, and 70% reported at least 3 of the side effects, with the most common side effects including hunger, fatigue, headache, irritability, loose stools, constipation, nausea, and a lack of concentration.

Viral infections occurred in seven participants.

While most side effects occurred at the end of week 1, the development of side effects earlier, at day 3-4, was associated with higher levels of weight loss at the 4-week cut-off, which the authors noted could suggest a greater adherence to the diet at that stage.

One adverse event occurred, consisting of a single fainting episode determined to be potentially related to the dietary intervention.

In surveys, the adolescents gave the intervention an acceptability rating of 61 on a scale of 100, the score was 53 of 100 in terms of being “enjoyable to follow.”

The most-liked aspects of the intervention were losing weight (described by 34% of participants) and the prescriptive structure (listed by 28% of participants).

The least-liked aspects included the diet’s restrictive nature, described by 45% of participants, and the taste of meal replacement products, listed by 20% of participants.
 

Alternative to Weight Loss Drugs?

While weight loss drugs are transforming the obesity treatment and semaglutide is now approved for adolescents as young as age 12 years, “access to these medications is limited, and not all families want to commence on medication for their child›s obesity,” Dr. Gow said.

As an alternative, a very low-energy diet, with the interaction of a dietitian, can enable adolescents “to develop a healthier relationship with food, including encouraging the consumption of more fruits and vegetables in their diet, not only to assist in weight loss but for good health,” she said.
 

Very Low-Calorie Diet Concerns for Adolescents Addressed

Early studies suggested concerns of health effects from very low-calorie diets in adolescents, including potential cardiac effects; however, subsequent studies, including a systematic review published by Dr. Gow and her team, have shown that such results were likely the result of nutritional deficiencies in the diets, which can be overcome with careful food selection and dietary counseling.

Another key concern has been a potential effect on growth, but Dr. Gow noted that “in our short-term study we saw small increase in height (0.1 cm), and other more recent studies suggest that a short-term very low-energy diet does not impact growth.”

And in an earlier pilot study, the authors also found an association between the very low-calorie diet and an improvement in the quality of life for youth with type 2 diabetes.

A key caveat with the findings is that participants in the study all received supervision and monitoring from a trained dietitian, and Gow noted that that element is essential.

“We therefore do not recommend adolescents in the community undertake this type of diet without appropriate support,” she said.

“Close monitoring of adolescents by a health professional following a very low-energy diet is essential to ensure that the very low-energy diet is leading to holistic health benefits for the individual.”

Following the 4-week regimen, participants were randomized to transition to interventions of either continuous energy restriction or intermittent energy restriction over the 52 weeks, and further findings from the study will be presented at the obesity meeting in May.

The authors had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among adolescents with moderate to severe obesity, a nutritionally balanced, very low-calorie diet with the monitoring of a dietitian shows high adherence and safety, with significant weight loss over the course of a month and common, but mild side effects.

More research is needed to understand which patients are best suited for the diet; “however, given the associated rapid weight loss, the use of [very low-energy diets] should be emphasized in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of severe obesity and obesity-related complications in adolescents, especially before pharmacological or surgical intervention,” first author Megan Gow, PhD, of Children’s Hospital Westmead Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Westmead, Australia, said in a press statement. 

The study will be presented in May at the upcoming European Congress on Obesity, in Venice, Italy.

While very low-calorie diets have been shown to promote rapid weight loss in adolescents, research is lacking on general side effects and acceptability of the regimens. Data is also lacking on important issues including the diet’s effect on growth, heart health, and psychological wellbeing. 

To investigate, Dr. Gow and colleagues conducted a subanalysis of the 52-week Fast Track to Health study evaluating the acceptability of different dietary plans for adolescents with obesity.

The analysis included 141 adolescents between the ages of 13 and 17 years with moderate to severe obesity (average body mass index, 35 kg/m²) and at least one obesity-related complication, such as high blood pressure or insulin resistance.

The participants were placed on a nutritionally balanced very low-energy diet consisting of 800 calories per day. 

The diet involved one of two regimens — either four Optifast-formulated meal replacement products per day, including shakes, soups, bars, and/or dessert, along with low carbohydrate vegetables, such as broccoli, celery, capsicum, mushrooms, and tomatoes, with one teaspoon of vegetable oil, or a regimen of three Optifast-formulated meal replacements and one meal consisting of 100-150 g lean cooked meat, low-carbohydrate vegetables, and one teaspoon of vegetable oil.

Participants, about half of whom were women, also received dietitian support at least weekly. 

After 4 weeks, most of the adolescents, ie, 134 of the 141, with an average age of 14.9 years, completed the diet, with an average weight loss of 5.5 kg or 12 pounds (P < .001).

Most patients (95%) experienced at least one side effect, and 70% reported at least 3 of the side effects, with the most common side effects including hunger, fatigue, headache, irritability, loose stools, constipation, nausea, and a lack of concentration.

Viral infections occurred in seven participants.

While most side effects occurred at the end of week 1, the development of side effects earlier, at day 3-4, was associated with higher levels of weight loss at the 4-week cut-off, which the authors noted could suggest a greater adherence to the diet at that stage.

One adverse event occurred, consisting of a single fainting episode determined to be potentially related to the dietary intervention.

In surveys, the adolescents gave the intervention an acceptability rating of 61 on a scale of 100, the score was 53 of 100 in terms of being “enjoyable to follow.”

The most-liked aspects of the intervention were losing weight (described by 34% of participants) and the prescriptive structure (listed by 28% of participants).

The least-liked aspects included the diet’s restrictive nature, described by 45% of participants, and the taste of meal replacement products, listed by 20% of participants.
 

Alternative to Weight Loss Drugs?

While weight loss drugs are transforming the obesity treatment and semaglutide is now approved for adolescents as young as age 12 years, “access to these medications is limited, and not all families want to commence on medication for their child›s obesity,” Dr. Gow said.

As an alternative, a very low-energy diet, with the interaction of a dietitian, can enable adolescents “to develop a healthier relationship with food, including encouraging the consumption of more fruits and vegetables in their diet, not only to assist in weight loss but for good health,” she said.
 

Very Low-Calorie Diet Concerns for Adolescents Addressed

Early studies suggested concerns of health effects from very low-calorie diets in adolescents, including potential cardiac effects; however, subsequent studies, including a systematic review published by Dr. Gow and her team, have shown that such results were likely the result of nutritional deficiencies in the diets, which can be overcome with careful food selection and dietary counseling.

Another key concern has been a potential effect on growth, but Dr. Gow noted that “in our short-term study we saw small increase in height (0.1 cm), and other more recent studies suggest that a short-term very low-energy diet does not impact growth.”

And in an earlier pilot study, the authors also found an association between the very low-calorie diet and an improvement in the quality of life for youth with type 2 diabetes.

A key caveat with the findings is that participants in the study all received supervision and monitoring from a trained dietitian, and Gow noted that that element is essential.

“We therefore do not recommend adolescents in the community undertake this type of diet without appropriate support,” she said.

“Close monitoring of adolescents by a health professional following a very low-energy diet is essential to ensure that the very low-energy diet is leading to holistic health benefits for the individual.”

Following the 4-week regimen, participants were randomized to transition to interventions of either continuous energy restriction or intermittent energy restriction over the 52 weeks, and further findings from the study will be presented at the obesity meeting in May.

The authors had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among adolescents with moderate to severe obesity, a nutritionally balanced, very low-calorie diet with the monitoring of a dietitian shows high adherence and safety, with significant weight loss over the course of a month and common, but mild side effects.

More research is needed to understand which patients are best suited for the diet; “however, given the associated rapid weight loss, the use of [very low-energy diets] should be emphasized in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of severe obesity and obesity-related complications in adolescents, especially before pharmacological or surgical intervention,” first author Megan Gow, PhD, of Children’s Hospital Westmead Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Westmead, Australia, said in a press statement. 

The study will be presented in May at the upcoming European Congress on Obesity, in Venice, Italy.

While very low-calorie diets have been shown to promote rapid weight loss in adolescents, research is lacking on general side effects and acceptability of the regimens. Data is also lacking on important issues including the diet’s effect on growth, heart health, and psychological wellbeing. 

To investigate, Dr. Gow and colleagues conducted a subanalysis of the 52-week Fast Track to Health study evaluating the acceptability of different dietary plans for adolescents with obesity.

The analysis included 141 adolescents between the ages of 13 and 17 years with moderate to severe obesity (average body mass index, 35 kg/m²) and at least one obesity-related complication, such as high blood pressure or insulin resistance.

The participants were placed on a nutritionally balanced very low-energy diet consisting of 800 calories per day. 

The diet involved one of two regimens — either four Optifast-formulated meal replacement products per day, including shakes, soups, bars, and/or dessert, along with low carbohydrate vegetables, such as broccoli, celery, capsicum, mushrooms, and tomatoes, with one teaspoon of vegetable oil, or a regimen of three Optifast-formulated meal replacements and one meal consisting of 100-150 g lean cooked meat, low-carbohydrate vegetables, and one teaspoon of vegetable oil.

Participants, about half of whom were women, also received dietitian support at least weekly. 

After 4 weeks, most of the adolescents, ie, 134 of the 141, with an average age of 14.9 years, completed the diet, with an average weight loss of 5.5 kg or 12 pounds (P < .001).

Most patients (95%) experienced at least one side effect, and 70% reported at least 3 of the side effects, with the most common side effects including hunger, fatigue, headache, irritability, loose stools, constipation, nausea, and a lack of concentration.

Viral infections occurred in seven participants.

While most side effects occurred at the end of week 1, the development of side effects earlier, at day 3-4, was associated with higher levels of weight loss at the 4-week cut-off, which the authors noted could suggest a greater adherence to the diet at that stage.

One adverse event occurred, consisting of a single fainting episode determined to be potentially related to the dietary intervention.

In surveys, the adolescents gave the intervention an acceptability rating of 61 on a scale of 100, the score was 53 of 100 in terms of being “enjoyable to follow.”

The most-liked aspects of the intervention were losing weight (described by 34% of participants) and the prescriptive structure (listed by 28% of participants).

The least-liked aspects included the diet’s restrictive nature, described by 45% of participants, and the taste of meal replacement products, listed by 20% of participants.
 

Alternative to Weight Loss Drugs?

While weight loss drugs are transforming the obesity treatment and semaglutide is now approved for adolescents as young as age 12 years, “access to these medications is limited, and not all families want to commence on medication for their child›s obesity,” Dr. Gow said.

As an alternative, a very low-energy diet, with the interaction of a dietitian, can enable adolescents “to develop a healthier relationship with food, including encouraging the consumption of more fruits and vegetables in their diet, not only to assist in weight loss but for good health,” she said.
 

Very Low-Calorie Diet Concerns for Adolescents Addressed

Early studies suggested concerns of health effects from very low-calorie diets in adolescents, including potential cardiac effects; however, subsequent studies, including a systematic review published by Dr. Gow and her team, have shown that such results were likely the result of nutritional deficiencies in the diets, which can be overcome with careful food selection and dietary counseling.

Another key concern has been a potential effect on growth, but Dr. Gow noted that “in our short-term study we saw small increase in height (0.1 cm), and other more recent studies suggest that a short-term very low-energy diet does not impact growth.”

And in an earlier pilot study, the authors also found an association between the very low-calorie diet and an improvement in the quality of life for youth with type 2 diabetes.

A key caveat with the findings is that participants in the study all received supervision and monitoring from a trained dietitian, and Gow noted that that element is essential.

“We therefore do not recommend adolescents in the community undertake this type of diet without appropriate support,” she said.

“Close monitoring of adolescents by a health professional following a very low-energy diet is essential to ensure that the very low-energy diet is leading to holistic health benefits for the individual.”

Following the 4-week regimen, participants were randomized to transition to interventions of either continuous energy restriction or intermittent energy restriction over the 52 weeks, and further findings from the study will be presented at the obesity meeting in May.

The authors had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.