MDedge Pediatrics

Thanks to decades of successful vector control strategies, vector-borne transmission of Chagas disease has significantly decreased in many regions. Oral ingestion of Trypanosoma cruzi through contaminated food and beverages, however, is increasing. Unlike vector transmission, oral transmission of Chagas disease entails high lethality in pediatric and adult populations.

“The oral transmission of Chagas disease is becoming a much more recognized route, and it is crucial to understand that people can die from this type of transmission,” Norman L. Beatty, MD, assistant professor of infectious diseases and global medicine at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Gainesville, Florida, told this news organization. Dr. Beatty is the lead author of a recent article on the subject.

In regions where the parasite circulates in the environment, people are consuming foods, fruit juices, and possibly wild animal meat that may be contaminated. “As we experience changes in our environment and in the way we consume food, it is crucial to consider how food preparation is carried out in areas where T cruzi transmission occurs in the environment,” said Dr. Beatty. “And as organic farming methods without insecticides become increasingly common, more research is needed in these areas, both in Latin America and in the United States, to understand if oral transmission of T cruzi is occurring.”

In the Amazon basin, foodborne transmission is already the leading cause of acute Chagas disease. It has been described in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, and Venezuela.

Dr. Beatty’s colleagues recently treated a Brazilian patient at the hospital in Florida. “He came to our hospital very ill, with acute myocarditis after consuming contaminated açaí.” Clarifying that there is widespread awareness about oral transmission in Brazil, he stated, “We are concerned that it may not be recognized in other areas of Latin America.”

Mexico and regions of Central America have little to no information on oral transmission, but it is likely occurring, and cases may be going undetected in the region, said Dr. Beatty.

He investigated the issue in Colombia as part of an international collaboration involving the University of Antioquia, aiming to find ways to mitigate oral transmission and create a model that can be used throughout Latin America and the United States. For the Colombia study, they reviewed all cases reported to the Ministry of Health and Social Protection, and oral transmission turned out to be more common than the research group expected. “Still, I imagine that in certain areas with limited resources…there are many more cases that are not being reported.

“A myth I would like to dispel is that Chagas disease is not being transmitted in the United States,” Dr. Beatty added. He mentioned that at least 30 American states have vectors, and in Florida, it was documented that triatomines invaded homes and bit residents. In addition, 30% of these insects are infected with T cruzi. Research is underway to determine whether Floridians are becoming infected and if they are also at risk of contracting Chagas disease orally, said Dr. Beatty. “In the United States, we know very little about how many people are infected and what the infection routes are. Much more research is needed.”

Roberto Chuit, MD, PhD, a doctor in public health and an external consultant for the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), agreed that this route of food contamination, which occurs because of vector-borne parasites, was until recently masked or hidden by the predominance of vector presence. Just as it began to gain importance as other transmission routes were controlled, “it now has extremely high importance in the Americas, as does vertical transmission,” he said.

In 2023, more than 50 years after the first description of oral transmission, the PAHO expert meeting proposed to alert health services and the broader community about the severity and potential lethality of oral Chagas disease outbreaks to elicit immediate responses and mitigation measures. The body also proposed conducting studies to provide detailed information on the contamination source and the wild vectors present in oral transmission foci.
 

Unique Clinical Manifestations

The exacerbated signs and symptoms of oral infection (see sidebar) are attributed to the high parasite loads in contaminated food and beverages. A single crushed triatomine along with a food or beverage harboring T cruzi can contain an estimated 600,000 metacyclic trypomastigotes, compared with 3000-4000 per µL when infection occurs by triatomine fecal matter. The robust systemic immune response observed in patients with acute oral Chagas disease is thought to result from more efficient transmission after penetration through the oral, pharyngeal, and gastric mucosae.
 

Seven Things to Know About Orally Transmitted Chagas Disease

1. It presents with exacerbated symptoms and rapid disease progression in immunocompetent individuals. This presentation is not common in vector-borne, congenital, or transfusion-related transmission. It can cause fulminant myocarditis and heart failure, meningoencephalitis, or potentially fatal shock due to parasitemia.

2. Most patients (71%-100%) with acute oral Chagas present with fever.

3. Electrocardiographic abnormalities, specifically ventricular depolarization alterations and pericardial involvement, are observed in most patients.

4. Facial edema, which typically affects the entire face and parts of the lips, is present in 57%-100% of patients with acute oral Chagas disease. In those with acute symptoms from vector transmission, unilateral periorbital swelling (Romaña’s sign) is more common.

5. Other notable systemic symptoms include edema of the lower extremities, myalgia, generalized lymphadenopathy, abdominal discomfort, dyspnea, vomiting, diarrhea, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, headache, chest pain, cutaneous erythematous rash, jaundice, arthralgia, epistaxis, hematemesis, melena, and palpitations.

6. The incubation period after oral ingestion of products contaminated with Trypanosoma cruzi is approximately 3-22 days, in contrast to 4-15 days for vector-borne transmission and 8-160 days for transfusion and transplant-related transmission.

7. Patients need antiparasitic drugs immediately.
 

Thinking Epidemiologically

Dr. Chuit recalled that suspicion of food contamination should be based on epidemiology, especially in outbreaks affecting several people and in regions where Chagas vectors have been described. Sometimes, however, a single careless tourist consumes contaminated products.

“The difficulty is that many times it is not considered, and if it is not considered, the search for the parasite is not requested,” said Dr. Chuit. He added that it is common for the professional to consider Chagas disease only if viral and bacterial isolation tests are negative. Clinicians sometimes consider Chagas disease because the patient has not responded to regular treatments for other causes, such as antibiotics and hydration.

Epidemiology is important, especially when Chagas disease is diagnosed in groups or a family, because they are usually not isolated cases but outbreaks of 3-40 cases, according to Dr. Chuit. “Under these conditions, it must be quickly considered…that this parasite may be involved.”

One of the difficulties is that the source of these oral transmissions is not recognized most of the time. In general, the sources are usually foods that are more likely to be contaminated by insects or insect feces, such as orange juice or sugarcane. But in fact, any food or beverage left unattended could be contaminated by vectors or possible secretions from infected marsupial odoriferous glands.

An analysis of 32 outbreaks from 1965 to 2022 showed that the main foods involved in oral transmission were homemade fruit juices. But different vector species were identified, and the reservoirs were mainly dogs, rodents, and large American opossums (Didelphis).

The largest oral Chagas outbreak was linked to the consumption of contaminated guava juice in a primary school in Caracas, Venezuela. Nonindustrially produced açaí is a common source of orally acquired Chagas disease in Brazil. In Colombia, Chagas disease has been associated with the consumption of palm wine, sugar cane, and tangerine juice. Other oral transmission routes include consuming meat from wild animals and ingesting blood from infected armadillos, which is related to a traditional medicine practice.
 

Deadly Yet Easily Treatable

In the outbreak of 119 confirmed and suspected cases in Venezuela, 20.3% required hospitalization, and a 5-year-old child died of acute myocarditis. These percentages differ from those reported in vector transmission, which is asymptomatic in the acute phase for 95%-99% of cases or will only develop a mild febrile illness that resolves on its own.

“Not all cases will present as severe, because depending on the inoculum, there may be individuals with subclinical situations. But any food poisoning that occurs in endemic areas, where food is not properly controlled, and these street foods are associated with processes in jungle areas, raises the possibility that T cruzi is involved and should be considered as a differential diagnosis,» noted Dr. Chuit. “The treatment is highly effective, and people recover quickly.”

“The most important thing about oral transmission of Chagas is that someone infected in this way needs antiparasitic drugs immediately. We can cure them if we treat them immediately,” said Dr. Beatty, adding that treatment is sometimes delayed due to lack of access to appropriate antiparasitic drugs. “Here in the United States and in Latin America, it is quite common for healthcare professionals not to understand the differences between vector, vertical, and oral transmission. By not treating these patients, they become ill quickly.”

Dr. Beatty and Dr. Chuit declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

This story was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Thanks to decades of successful vector control strategies, vector-borne transmission of Chagas disease has significantly decreased in many regions. Oral ingestion of Trypanosoma cruzi through contaminated food and beverages, however, is increasing. Unlike vector transmission, oral transmission of Chagas disease entails high lethality in pediatric and adult populations.

“The oral transmission of Chagas disease is becoming a much more recognized route, and it is crucial to understand that people can die from this type of transmission,” Norman L. Beatty, MD, assistant professor of infectious diseases and global medicine at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Gainesville, Florida, told this news organization. Dr. Beatty is the lead author of a recent article on the subject.

In regions where the parasite circulates in the environment, people are consuming foods, fruit juices, and possibly wild animal meat that may be contaminated. “As we experience changes in our environment and in the way we consume food, it is crucial to consider how food preparation is carried out in areas where T cruzi transmission occurs in the environment,” said Dr. Beatty. “And as organic farming methods without insecticides become increasingly common, more research is needed in these areas, both in Latin America and in the United States, to understand if oral transmission of T cruzi is occurring.”

In the Amazon basin, foodborne transmission is already the leading cause of acute Chagas disease. It has been described in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, and Venezuela.

Dr. Beatty’s colleagues recently treated a Brazilian patient at the hospital in Florida. “He came to our hospital very ill, with acute myocarditis after consuming contaminated açaí.” Clarifying that there is widespread awareness about oral transmission in Brazil, he stated, “We are concerned that it may not be recognized in other areas of Latin America.”

Mexico and regions of Central America have little to no information on oral transmission, but it is likely occurring, and cases may be going undetected in the region, said Dr. Beatty.

He investigated the issue in Colombia as part of an international collaboration involving the University of Antioquia, aiming to find ways to mitigate oral transmission and create a model that can be used throughout Latin America and the United States. For the Colombia study, they reviewed all cases reported to the Ministry of Health and Social Protection, and oral transmission turned out to be more common than the research group expected. “Still, I imagine that in certain areas with limited resources…there are many more cases that are not being reported.

“A myth I would like to dispel is that Chagas disease is not being transmitted in the United States,” Dr. Beatty added. He mentioned that at least 30 American states have vectors, and in Florida, it was documented that triatomines invaded homes and bit residents. In addition, 30% of these insects are infected with T cruzi. Research is underway to determine whether Floridians are becoming infected and if they are also at risk of contracting Chagas disease orally, said Dr. Beatty. “In the United States, we know very little about how many people are infected and what the infection routes are. Much more research is needed.”

Roberto Chuit, MD, PhD, a doctor in public health and an external consultant for the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), agreed that this route of food contamination, which occurs because of vector-borne parasites, was until recently masked or hidden by the predominance of vector presence. Just as it began to gain importance as other transmission routes were controlled, “it now has extremely high importance in the Americas, as does vertical transmission,” he said.

In 2023, more than 50 years after the first description of oral transmission, the PAHO expert meeting proposed to alert health services and the broader community about the severity and potential lethality of oral Chagas disease outbreaks to elicit immediate responses and mitigation measures. The body also proposed conducting studies to provide detailed information on the contamination source and the wild vectors present in oral transmission foci.
 

Unique Clinical Manifestations

The exacerbated signs and symptoms of oral infection (see sidebar) are attributed to the high parasite loads in contaminated food and beverages. A single crushed triatomine along with a food or beverage harboring T cruzi can contain an estimated 600,000 metacyclic trypomastigotes, compared with 3000-4000 per µL when infection occurs by triatomine fecal matter. The robust systemic immune response observed in patients with acute oral Chagas disease is thought to result from more efficient transmission after penetration through the oral, pharyngeal, and gastric mucosae.
 

Seven Things to Know About Orally Transmitted Chagas Disease

1. It presents with exacerbated symptoms and rapid disease progression in immunocompetent individuals. This presentation is not common in vector-borne, congenital, or transfusion-related transmission. It can cause fulminant myocarditis and heart failure, meningoencephalitis, or potentially fatal shock due to parasitemia.

2. Most patients (71%-100%) with acute oral Chagas present with fever.

3. Electrocardiographic abnormalities, specifically ventricular depolarization alterations and pericardial involvement, are observed in most patients.

4. Facial edema, which typically affects the entire face and parts of the lips, is present in 57%-100% of patients with acute oral Chagas disease. In those with acute symptoms from vector transmission, unilateral periorbital swelling (Romaña’s sign) is more common.

5. Other notable systemic symptoms include edema of the lower extremities, myalgia, generalized lymphadenopathy, abdominal discomfort, dyspnea, vomiting, diarrhea, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, headache, chest pain, cutaneous erythematous rash, jaundice, arthralgia, epistaxis, hematemesis, melena, and palpitations.

6. The incubation period after oral ingestion of products contaminated with Trypanosoma cruzi is approximately 3-22 days, in contrast to 4-15 days for vector-borne transmission and 8-160 days for transfusion and transplant-related transmission.

7. Patients need antiparasitic drugs immediately.
 

Thinking Epidemiologically

Dr. Chuit recalled that suspicion of food contamination should be based on epidemiology, especially in outbreaks affecting several people and in regions where Chagas vectors have been described. Sometimes, however, a single careless tourist consumes contaminated products.

“The difficulty is that many times it is not considered, and if it is not considered, the search for the parasite is not requested,” said Dr. Chuit. He added that it is common for the professional to consider Chagas disease only if viral and bacterial isolation tests are negative. Clinicians sometimes consider Chagas disease because the patient has not responded to regular treatments for other causes, such as antibiotics and hydration.

Epidemiology is important, especially when Chagas disease is diagnosed in groups or a family, because they are usually not isolated cases but outbreaks of 3-40 cases, according to Dr. Chuit. “Under these conditions, it must be quickly considered…that this parasite may be involved.”

One of the difficulties is that the source of these oral transmissions is not recognized most of the time. In general, the sources are usually foods that are more likely to be contaminated by insects or insect feces, such as orange juice or sugarcane. But in fact, any food or beverage left unattended could be contaminated by vectors or possible secretions from infected marsupial odoriferous glands.

An analysis of 32 outbreaks from 1965 to 2022 showed that the main foods involved in oral transmission were homemade fruit juices. But different vector species were identified, and the reservoirs were mainly dogs, rodents, and large American opossums (Didelphis).

The largest oral Chagas outbreak was linked to the consumption of contaminated guava juice in a primary school in Caracas, Venezuela. Nonindustrially produced açaí is a common source of orally acquired Chagas disease in Brazil. In Colombia, Chagas disease has been associated with the consumption of palm wine, sugar cane, and tangerine juice. Other oral transmission routes include consuming meat from wild animals and ingesting blood from infected armadillos, which is related to a traditional medicine practice.
 

Deadly Yet Easily Treatable

In the outbreak of 119 confirmed and suspected cases in Venezuela, 20.3% required hospitalization, and a 5-year-old child died of acute myocarditis. These percentages differ from those reported in vector transmission, which is asymptomatic in the acute phase for 95%-99% of cases or will only develop a mild febrile illness that resolves on its own.

“Not all cases will present as severe, because depending on the inoculum, there may be individuals with subclinical situations. But any food poisoning that occurs in endemic areas, where food is not properly controlled, and these street foods are associated with processes in jungle areas, raises the possibility that T cruzi is involved and should be considered as a differential diagnosis,» noted Dr. Chuit. “The treatment is highly effective, and people recover quickly.”

“The most important thing about oral transmission of Chagas is that someone infected in this way needs antiparasitic drugs immediately. We can cure them if we treat them immediately,” said Dr. Beatty, adding that treatment is sometimes delayed due to lack of access to appropriate antiparasitic drugs. “Here in the United States and in Latin America, it is quite common for healthcare professionals not to understand the differences between vector, vertical, and oral transmission. By not treating these patients, they become ill quickly.”

Dr. Beatty and Dr. Chuit declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

This story was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Thanks to decades of successful vector control strategies, vector-borne transmission of Chagas disease has significantly decreased in many regions. Oral ingestion of Trypanosoma cruzi through contaminated food and beverages, however, is increasing. Unlike vector transmission, oral transmission of Chagas disease entails high lethality in pediatric and adult populations.

“The oral transmission of Chagas disease is becoming a much more recognized route, and it is crucial to understand that people can die from this type of transmission,” Norman L. Beatty, MD, assistant professor of infectious diseases and global medicine at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Gainesville, Florida, told this news organization. Dr. Beatty is the lead author of a recent article on the subject.

In regions where the parasite circulates in the environment, people are consuming foods, fruit juices, and possibly wild animal meat that may be contaminated. “As we experience changes in our environment and in the way we consume food, it is crucial to consider how food preparation is carried out in areas where T cruzi transmission occurs in the environment,” said Dr. Beatty. “And as organic farming methods without insecticides become increasingly common, more research is needed in these areas, both in Latin America and in the United States, to understand if oral transmission of T cruzi is occurring.”

In the Amazon basin, foodborne transmission is already the leading cause of acute Chagas disease. It has been described in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, and Venezuela.

Dr. Beatty’s colleagues recently treated a Brazilian patient at the hospital in Florida. “He came to our hospital very ill, with acute myocarditis after consuming contaminated açaí.” Clarifying that there is widespread awareness about oral transmission in Brazil, he stated, “We are concerned that it may not be recognized in other areas of Latin America.”

Mexico and regions of Central America have little to no information on oral transmission, but it is likely occurring, and cases may be going undetected in the region, said Dr. Beatty.

He investigated the issue in Colombia as part of an international collaboration involving the University of Antioquia, aiming to find ways to mitigate oral transmission and create a model that can be used throughout Latin America and the United States. For the Colombia study, they reviewed all cases reported to the Ministry of Health and Social Protection, and oral transmission turned out to be more common than the research group expected. “Still, I imagine that in certain areas with limited resources…there are many more cases that are not being reported.

“A myth I would like to dispel is that Chagas disease is not being transmitted in the United States,” Dr. Beatty added. He mentioned that at least 30 American states have vectors, and in Florida, it was documented that triatomines invaded homes and bit residents. In addition, 30% of these insects are infected with T cruzi. Research is underway to determine whether Floridians are becoming infected and if they are also at risk of contracting Chagas disease orally, said Dr. Beatty. “In the United States, we know very little about how many people are infected and what the infection routes are. Much more research is needed.”

Roberto Chuit, MD, PhD, a doctor in public health and an external consultant for the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), agreed that this route of food contamination, which occurs because of vector-borne parasites, was until recently masked or hidden by the predominance of vector presence. Just as it began to gain importance as other transmission routes were controlled, “it now has extremely high importance in the Americas, as does vertical transmission,” he said.

In 2023, more than 50 years after the first description of oral transmission, the PAHO expert meeting proposed to alert health services and the broader community about the severity and potential lethality of oral Chagas disease outbreaks to elicit immediate responses and mitigation measures. The body also proposed conducting studies to provide detailed information on the contamination source and the wild vectors present in oral transmission foci.
 

Unique Clinical Manifestations

The exacerbated signs and symptoms of oral infection (see sidebar) are attributed to the high parasite loads in contaminated food and beverages. A single crushed triatomine along with a food or beverage harboring T cruzi can contain an estimated 600,000 metacyclic trypomastigotes, compared with 3000-4000 per µL when infection occurs by triatomine fecal matter. The robust systemic immune response observed in patients with acute oral Chagas disease is thought to result from more efficient transmission after penetration through the oral, pharyngeal, and gastric mucosae.
 

Seven Things to Know About Orally Transmitted Chagas Disease

1. It presents with exacerbated symptoms and rapid disease progression in immunocompetent individuals. This presentation is not common in vector-borne, congenital, or transfusion-related transmission. It can cause fulminant myocarditis and heart failure, meningoencephalitis, or potentially fatal shock due to parasitemia.

2. Most patients (71%-100%) with acute oral Chagas present with fever.

3. Electrocardiographic abnormalities, specifically ventricular depolarization alterations and pericardial involvement, are observed in most patients.

4. Facial edema, which typically affects the entire face and parts of the lips, is present in 57%-100% of patients with acute oral Chagas disease. In those with acute symptoms from vector transmission, unilateral periorbital swelling (Romaña’s sign) is more common.

5. Other notable systemic symptoms include edema of the lower extremities, myalgia, generalized lymphadenopathy, abdominal discomfort, dyspnea, vomiting, diarrhea, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, headache, chest pain, cutaneous erythematous rash, jaundice, arthralgia, epistaxis, hematemesis, melena, and palpitations.

6. The incubation period after oral ingestion of products contaminated with Trypanosoma cruzi is approximately 3-22 days, in contrast to 4-15 days for vector-borne transmission and 8-160 days for transfusion and transplant-related transmission.

7. Patients need antiparasitic drugs immediately.
 

Thinking Epidemiologically

Dr. Chuit recalled that suspicion of food contamination should be based on epidemiology, especially in outbreaks affecting several people and in regions where Chagas vectors have been described. Sometimes, however, a single careless tourist consumes contaminated products.

“The difficulty is that many times it is not considered, and if it is not considered, the search for the parasite is not requested,” said Dr. Chuit. He added that it is common for the professional to consider Chagas disease only if viral and bacterial isolation tests are negative. Clinicians sometimes consider Chagas disease because the patient has not responded to regular treatments for other causes, such as antibiotics and hydration.

Epidemiology is important, especially when Chagas disease is diagnosed in groups or a family, because they are usually not isolated cases but outbreaks of 3-40 cases, according to Dr. Chuit. “Under these conditions, it must be quickly considered…that this parasite may be involved.”

One of the difficulties is that the source of these oral transmissions is not recognized most of the time. In general, the sources are usually foods that are more likely to be contaminated by insects or insect feces, such as orange juice or sugarcane. But in fact, any food or beverage left unattended could be contaminated by vectors or possible secretions from infected marsupial odoriferous glands.

An analysis of 32 outbreaks from 1965 to 2022 showed that the main foods involved in oral transmission were homemade fruit juices. But different vector species were identified, and the reservoirs were mainly dogs, rodents, and large American opossums (Didelphis).

The largest oral Chagas outbreak was linked to the consumption of contaminated guava juice in a primary school in Caracas, Venezuela. Nonindustrially produced açaí is a common source of orally acquired Chagas disease in Brazil. In Colombia, Chagas disease has been associated with the consumption of palm wine, sugar cane, and tangerine juice. Other oral transmission routes include consuming meat from wild animals and ingesting blood from infected armadillos, which is related to a traditional medicine practice.
 

Deadly Yet Easily Treatable

In the outbreak of 119 confirmed and suspected cases in Venezuela, 20.3% required hospitalization, and a 5-year-old child died of acute myocarditis. These percentages differ from those reported in vector transmission, which is asymptomatic in the acute phase for 95%-99% of cases or will only develop a mild febrile illness that resolves on its own.

“Not all cases will present as severe, because depending on the inoculum, there may be individuals with subclinical situations. But any food poisoning that occurs in endemic areas, where food is not properly controlled, and these street foods are associated with processes in jungle areas, raises the possibility that T cruzi is involved and should be considered as a differential diagnosis,» noted Dr. Chuit. “The treatment is highly effective, and people recover quickly.”

“The most important thing about oral transmission of Chagas is that someone infected in this way needs antiparasitic drugs immediately. We can cure them if we treat them immediately,” said Dr. Beatty, adding that treatment is sometimes delayed due to lack of access to appropriate antiparasitic drugs. “Here in the United States and in Latin America, it is quite common for healthcare professionals not to understand the differences between vector, vertical, and oral transmission. By not treating these patients, they become ill quickly.”

Dr. Beatty and Dr. Chuit declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

This story was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The accuracy of information on TikTok videos about infantile hemangiomas (IHs) varies widely, researchers found.

METHODOLOGY:

• New parents may turn to TikTok for information about IHs, but little is known about the quality of videos on the social media platform related to the topic.
• Using the search term “hemangioma,” researchers reviewed the top 50 English-language TikTok videos that resulted from the query in November 2022.
• The researchers analyzed the videos for their content source, accuracy, and purpose and used Infantile Hemangioma Referral Score criteria to determine if the lesions pictured on the videos met criteria for referral to a specialist or not.

TAKEAWAY:

• Combined, the 50 videos were viewed 25.1 million times, had 2.6 million likes, and received 17,600 comments.
• Only 36 were considered likely to be IH. Of those 36 videos, the researchers deemed 33 (92%) to be potentially problematic, meriting referral to a specialist. The remaining three lesions could not be classified because of insufficient information.
• Of the 50 videos, 45 were created by individuals personally affected by IH (parents of a child with IH or young adults living with residual impacts), and only three were created by physicians (two by plastic surgeons and one by a neonatologist).
• In terms of content, 2 of the 45 videos created by someone personally affected by IH contained inaccurate information, while all three of videos created by physicians contained inaccurate information, such as oversimplification of the prognosis or incorrect nomenclature.

IN PRACTICE:

“Providers should be aware that TikTok may be useful for promoting birthmark awareness, but that it should not be relied on for accurate information about IHs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

First author Sonora Yun, a medical student at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City, conducted the research with Maria C. Garzon, MD, and Kimberly D. Morel, MD, who are board-certified pediatric dermatologists at Columbia. The study was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted no specific limitations to the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The accuracy of information on TikTok videos about infantile hemangiomas (IHs) varies widely, researchers found.

METHODOLOGY:

• New parents may turn to TikTok for information about IHs, but little is known about the quality of videos on the social media platform related to the topic.
• Using the search term “hemangioma,” researchers reviewed the top 50 English-language TikTok videos that resulted from the query in November 2022.
• The researchers analyzed the videos for their content source, accuracy, and purpose and used Infantile Hemangioma Referral Score criteria to determine if the lesions pictured on the videos met criteria for referral to a specialist or not.

TAKEAWAY:

• Combined, the 50 videos were viewed 25.1 million times, had 2.6 million likes, and received 17,600 comments.
• Only 36 were considered likely to be IH. Of those 36 videos, the researchers deemed 33 (92%) to be potentially problematic, meriting referral to a specialist. The remaining three lesions could not be classified because of insufficient information.
• Of the 50 videos, 45 were created by individuals personally affected by IH (parents of a child with IH or young adults living with residual impacts), and only three were created by physicians (two by plastic surgeons and one by a neonatologist).
• In terms of content, 2 of the 45 videos created by someone personally affected by IH contained inaccurate information, while all three of videos created by physicians contained inaccurate information, such as oversimplification of the prognosis or incorrect nomenclature.

IN PRACTICE:

“Providers should be aware that TikTok may be useful for promoting birthmark awareness, but that it should not be relied on for accurate information about IHs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

First author Sonora Yun, a medical student at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City, conducted the research with Maria C. Garzon, MD, and Kimberly D. Morel, MD, who are board-certified pediatric dermatologists at Columbia. The study was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted no specific limitations to the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The accuracy of information on TikTok videos about infantile hemangiomas (IHs) varies widely, researchers found.

METHODOLOGY:

• New parents may turn to TikTok for information about IHs, but little is known about the quality of videos on the social media platform related to the topic.
• Using the search term “hemangioma,” researchers reviewed the top 50 English-language TikTok videos that resulted from the query in November 2022.
• The researchers analyzed the videos for their content source, accuracy, and purpose and used Infantile Hemangioma Referral Score criteria to determine if the lesions pictured on the videos met criteria for referral to a specialist or not.

TAKEAWAY:

• Combined, the 50 videos were viewed 25.1 million times, had 2.6 million likes, and received 17,600 comments.
• Only 36 were considered likely to be IH. Of those 36 videos, the researchers deemed 33 (92%) to be potentially problematic, meriting referral to a specialist. The remaining three lesions could not be classified because of insufficient information.
• Of the 50 videos, 45 were created by individuals personally affected by IH (parents of a child with IH or young adults living with residual impacts), and only three were created by physicians (two by plastic surgeons and one by a neonatologist).
• In terms of content, 2 of the 45 videos created by someone personally affected by IH contained inaccurate information, while all three of videos created by physicians contained inaccurate information, such as oversimplification of the prognosis or incorrect nomenclature.

IN PRACTICE:

“Providers should be aware that TikTok may be useful for promoting birthmark awareness, but that it should not be relied on for accurate information about IHs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

First author Sonora Yun, a medical student at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City, conducted the research with Maria C. Garzon, MD, and Kimberly D. Morel, MD, who are board-certified pediatric dermatologists at Columbia. The study was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted no specific limitations to the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sandra Hong, MD, chair of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, sees firsthand how situations that feel ordinary to most people strike fear in the hearts of her patients with food allergies. 

Not only do some experience reactions to milk when they eat a cheese pizza — they can’t be in the same room with someone enjoying a slice nearby. “That would be terrifying,” Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab (Xolair), recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as monotherapy for the treatment of food allergies, may now bring peace of mind to these patients and their families by reducing their risk of dangerous allergic reactions to accidental exposure.

While the drug does not cure food allergies, a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial found that after 16 weeks of treatment, two thirds of participants were able to tolerate at least 600 mg of peanut protein — equal to about 2.5 peanuts — without experiencing moderate to severe reactions. 

An open-label extension trial also found the monoclonal antibody reduced the likelihood of serious reactions to eggs by 67%, milk by 66%, and cashews by 42%. The results of the study were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The treatment is approved for children as young as the age of 1 year and is the only treatment approved for multiple food allergies. It does not treat anaphylaxis or other emergency situations.

Patient Selection Key

While 8% of children and 10% of adults in the United States have a true food allergy, Brian Vickery, MD, chief of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, noted that a significantly higher proportion of the population restricts their diet based on perceived food intolerances.

“Most important for family doctors prior to prescribing the medication will be to be sure that the diagnosis is correct,” Kim said. “We know that allergy blood and skin testing is good but not perfect, and false positive results can occur,” said Edwin Kim, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology and director of the University of North Carolina Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, who was a coauthor on the study in the New England Journal of Medicine. “ An allergist can conduct food challenges to confirm the diagnosis if results are unclear.”

Even for patients with confirmed IgE-mediated allergies, Dr. Hong said selecting patients who are good candidates for the therapy has “nuances.” 

Patients must be willing and able to commit to injections every 2-4 weeks. Dosing depends on body weight and the total IgE levels of each patient. Patients with IgE levels > 1850 UI/mL likely will be disqualified from treatment since the clinical trial did not enroll patients with total IgE above this level and the appropriate dose in those patients is unknown.

“My recommendation for family physicians who are counseling food-allergic patients interested in omalizumab treatment is to partner with an allergist-immunologist, if at all possible,” Dr. Vickery said. He added that patients should have a comprehensive workup before beginning treatment because starting omalizumab would reduce reactivity and alter the outcome a diagnostic oral food challenge.

Two populations Dr. Hong thinks might particularly benefit from the therapy are college students and preschoolers, who may be unable to completely avoid allergens because of poor impulse control and food sharing in group settings.

“The concerns we have about this age group are whether or not there might be other factors involved that may impede their ability to make good decisions.”

Less control of the environment in dorms or other group living situations also could increase the risk of accidental exposure to a food allergen.

For the right patients, the treatment regimen has significant advantages over oral immunotherapy treatment (OIT), including the fact that it’s not a daily medication and it has the potential to treat allergic asthma at the same time.

“The biggest pro for omalizumab is that it can treat all of your food allergies, whether you have one or many, and do it all in one medication,” Dr. Kim said. 

Managing Potential Harms

Omalizumab carries risks both primary care providers and patients must consider. First among them is that the drug carries a “black box” warning for an increased risk of anaphylaxis, Dr. Hong said. 

Although patients with multiple food allergies typically already have prescriptions for epinephrine, primary care physicians (PCPs) considering offering omalizumab must be comfortable treating severe systemic reactions and their offices capable of post-dose monitoring, Dr. Hong said. 

Anaphylaxis “can occur after the first dose or it can be delayed,” she said. “Typically, allergists will give these in our offices and we’ll actually have people wait for delayed amounts of time, for hours.”

The drug has been available since 2003 as a treatment for allergic asthma and urticaria. In addition to the warning for anaphylaxis, common reactions include joint pain and injection-site reactions. It also increases the risk for parasitic infection, and some studies show an increase in the risk for cancer.

Still, Dr. Kim said omalizumab’s safety profile is reassuring and noted it has advantages over OIT. “Since the patient is not exposing themselves to the food they are allergic to like in OIT, the safety is expected to be far better,” he said.

Lifelong Treatment 

Dr. Vickery, Dr. Hong, and Dr. Kim all cautioned that patients should understand that, while omalizumab offers protection against accidental exposure and can meaningfully improve quality of life, it won’t allow them to loosen their allergen-avoidant diets.

Further, maintaining protection requires receiving injections every 2-4 weeks for life. For those without insurance, or whose insurance does not cover the treatment, costs could reach thousands of dollars each month, Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab “has been well covered by insurance for asthma and chronic hives, but we will have to see what it looks like for food allergy. The range of plans and out-of-pocket deductibles available to patients will also play a big role,” Dr. Kim said. 

Other novel approaches to food allergies are currently in clinical trials, and both Dr. Hong and Dr. Vickery are optimistic about potential options in the pipeline.

“We’re just on the brink of really exciting therapies coming forward in the future,” Dr. Hong said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, both part of the National Institutes of Health; the Claudia and Steve Stange Family Fund; Genentech; and Novartis. Dr. Hong, Dr. Kim, and Dr. Vickery reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sandra Hong, MD, chair of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, sees firsthand how situations that feel ordinary to most people strike fear in the hearts of her patients with food allergies. 

Not only do some experience reactions to milk when they eat a cheese pizza — they can’t be in the same room with someone enjoying a slice nearby. “That would be terrifying,” Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab (Xolair), recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as monotherapy for the treatment of food allergies, may now bring peace of mind to these patients and their families by reducing their risk of dangerous allergic reactions to accidental exposure.

While the drug does not cure food allergies, a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial found that after 16 weeks of treatment, two thirds of participants were able to tolerate at least 600 mg of peanut protein — equal to about 2.5 peanuts — without experiencing moderate to severe reactions. 

An open-label extension trial also found the monoclonal antibody reduced the likelihood of serious reactions to eggs by 67%, milk by 66%, and cashews by 42%. The results of the study were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The treatment is approved for children as young as the age of 1 year and is the only treatment approved for multiple food allergies. It does not treat anaphylaxis or other emergency situations.

Patient Selection Key

While 8% of children and 10% of adults in the United States have a true food allergy, Brian Vickery, MD, chief of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, noted that a significantly higher proportion of the population restricts their diet based on perceived food intolerances.

“Most important for family doctors prior to prescribing the medication will be to be sure that the diagnosis is correct,” Kim said. “We know that allergy blood and skin testing is good but not perfect, and false positive results can occur,” said Edwin Kim, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology and director of the University of North Carolina Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, who was a coauthor on the study in the New England Journal of Medicine. “ An allergist can conduct food challenges to confirm the diagnosis if results are unclear.”

Even for patients with confirmed IgE-mediated allergies, Dr. Hong said selecting patients who are good candidates for the therapy has “nuances.” 

Patients must be willing and able to commit to injections every 2-4 weeks. Dosing depends on body weight and the total IgE levels of each patient. Patients with IgE levels > 1850 UI/mL likely will be disqualified from treatment since the clinical trial did not enroll patients with total IgE above this level and the appropriate dose in those patients is unknown.

“My recommendation for family physicians who are counseling food-allergic patients interested in omalizumab treatment is to partner with an allergist-immunologist, if at all possible,” Dr. Vickery said. He added that patients should have a comprehensive workup before beginning treatment because starting omalizumab would reduce reactivity and alter the outcome a diagnostic oral food challenge.

Two populations Dr. Hong thinks might particularly benefit from the therapy are college students and preschoolers, who may be unable to completely avoid allergens because of poor impulse control and food sharing in group settings.

“The concerns we have about this age group are whether or not there might be other factors involved that may impede their ability to make good decisions.”

Less control of the environment in dorms or other group living situations also could increase the risk of accidental exposure to a food allergen.

For the right patients, the treatment regimen has significant advantages over oral immunotherapy treatment (OIT), including the fact that it’s not a daily medication and it has the potential to treat allergic asthma at the same time.

“The biggest pro for omalizumab is that it can treat all of your food allergies, whether you have one or many, and do it all in one medication,” Dr. Kim said. 

Managing Potential Harms

Omalizumab carries risks both primary care providers and patients must consider. First among them is that the drug carries a “black box” warning for an increased risk of anaphylaxis, Dr. Hong said. 

Although patients with multiple food allergies typically already have prescriptions for epinephrine, primary care physicians (PCPs) considering offering omalizumab must be comfortable treating severe systemic reactions and their offices capable of post-dose monitoring, Dr. Hong said. 

Anaphylaxis “can occur after the first dose or it can be delayed,” she said. “Typically, allergists will give these in our offices and we’ll actually have people wait for delayed amounts of time, for hours.”

The drug has been available since 2003 as a treatment for allergic asthma and urticaria. In addition to the warning for anaphylaxis, common reactions include joint pain and injection-site reactions. It also increases the risk for parasitic infection, and some studies show an increase in the risk for cancer.

Still, Dr. Kim said omalizumab’s safety profile is reassuring and noted it has advantages over OIT. “Since the patient is not exposing themselves to the food they are allergic to like in OIT, the safety is expected to be far better,” he said.

Lifelong Treatment 

Dr. Vickery, Dr. Hong, and Dr. Kim all cautioned that patients should understand that, while omalizumab offers protection against accidental exposure and can meaningfully improve quality of life, it won’t allow them to loosen their allergen-avoidant diets.

Further, maintaining protection requires receiving injections every 2-4 weeks for life. For those without insurance, or whose insurance does not cover the treatment, costs could reach thousands of dollars each month, Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab “has been well covered by insurance for asthma and chronic hives, but we will have to see what it looks like for food allergy. The range of plans and out-of-pocket deductibles available to patients will also play a big role,” Dr. Kim said. 

Other novel approaches to food allergies are currently in clinical trials, and both Dr. Hong and Dr. Vickery are optimistic about potential options in the pipeline.

“We’re just on the brink of really exciting therapies coming forward in the future,” Dr. Hong said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, both part of the National Institutes of Health; the Claudia and Steve Stange Family Fund; Genentech; and Novartis. Dr. Hong, Dr. Kim, and Dr. Vickery reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sandra Hong, MD, chair of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, sees firsthand how situations that feel ordinary to most people strike fear in the hearts of her patients with food allergies. 

Not only do some experience reactions to milk when they eat a cheese pizza — they can’t be in the same room with someone enjoying a slice nearby. “That would be terrifying,” Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab (Xolair), recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as monotherapy for the treatment of food allergies, may now bring peace of mind to these patients and their families by reducing their risk of dangerous allergic reactions to accidental exposure.

While the drug does not cure food allergies, a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial found that after 16 weeks of treatment, two thirds of participants were able to tolerate at least 600 mg of peanut protein — equal to about 2.5 peanuts — without experiencing moderate to severe reactions. 

An open-label extension trial also found the monoclonal antibody reduced the likelihood of serious reactions to eggs by 67%, milk by 66%, and cashews by 42%. The results of the study were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The treatment is approved for children as young as the age of 1 year and is the only treatment approved for multiple food allergies. It does not treat anaphylaxis or other emergency situations.

Patient Selection Key

While 8% of children and 10% of adults in the United States have a true food allergy, Brian Vickery, MD, chief of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, noted that a significantly higher proportion of the population restricts their diet based on perceived food intolerances.

“Most important for family doctors prior to prescribing the medication will be to be sure that the diagnosis is correct,” Kim said. “We know that allergy blood and skin testing is good but not perfect, and false positive results can occur,” said Edwin Kim, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology and director of the University of North Carolina Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, who was a coauthor on the study in the New England Journal of Medicine. “ An allergist can conduct food challenges to confirm the diagnosis if results are unclear.”

Even for patients with confirmed IgE-mediated allergies, Dr. Hong said selecting patients who are good candidates for the therapy has “nuances.” 

Patients must be willing and able to commit to injections every 2-4 weeks. Dosing depends on body weight and the total IgE levels of each patient. Patients with IgE levels > 1850 UI/mL likely will be disqualified from treatment since the clinical trial did not enroll patients with total IgE above this level and the appropriate dose in those patients is unknown.

“My recommendation for family physicians who are counseling food-allergic patients interested in omalizumab treatment is to partner with an allergist-immunologist, if at all possible,” Dr. Vickery said. He added that patients should have a comprehensive workup before beginning treatment because starting omalizumab would reduce reactivity and alter the outcome a diagnostic oral food challenge.

Two populations Dr. Hong thinks might particularly benefit from the therapy are college students and preschoolers, who may be unable to completely avoid allergens because of poor impulse control and food sharing in group settings.

“The concerns we have about this age group are whether or not there might be other factors involved that may impede their ability to make good decisions.”

Less control of the environment in dorms or other group living situations also could increase the risk of accidental exposure to a food allergen.

For the right patients, the treatment regimen has significant advantages over oral immunotherapy treatment (OIT), including the fact that it’s not a daily medication and it has the potential to treat allergic asthma at the same time.

“The biggest pro for omalizumab is that it can treat all of your food allergies, whether you have one or many, and do it all in one medication,” Dr. Kim said. 

Managing Potential Harms

Omalizumab carries risks both primary care providers and patients must consider. First among them is that the drug carries a “black box” warning for an increased risk of anaphylaxis, Dr. Hong said. 

Although patients with multiple food allergies typically already have prescriptions for epinephrine, primary care physicians (PCPs) considering offering omalizumab must be comfortable treating severe systemic reactions and their offices capable of post-dose monitoring, Dr. Hong said. 

Anaphylaxis “can occur after the first dose or it can be delayed,” she said. “Typically, allergists will give these in our offices and we’ll actually have people wait for delayed amounts of time, for hours.”

The drug has been available since 2003 as a treatment for allergic asthma and urticaria. In addition to the warning for anaphylaxis, common reactions include joint pain and injection-site reactions. It also increases the risk for parasitic infection, and some studies show an increase in the risk for cancer.

Still, Dr. Kim said omalizumab’s safety profile is reassuring and noted it has advantages over OIT. “Since the patient is not exposing themselves to the food they are allergic to like in OIT, the safety is expected to be far better,” he said.

Lifelong Treatment 

Dr. Vickery, Dr. Hong, and Dr. Kim all cautioned that patients should understand that, while omalizumab offers protection against accidental exposure and can meaningfully improve quality of life, it won’t allow them to loosen their allergen-avoidant diets.

Further, maintaining protection requires receiving injections every 2-4 weeks for life. For those without insurance, or whose insurance does not cover the treatment, costs could reach thousands of dollars each month, Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab “has been well covered by insurance for asthma and chronic hives, but we will have to see what it looks like for food allergy. The range of plans and out-of-pocket deductibles available to patients will also play a big role,” Dr. Kim said. 

Other novel approaches to food allergies are currently in clinical trials, and both Dr. Hong and Dr. Vickery are optimistic about potential options in the pipeline.

“We’re just on the brink of really exciting therapies coming forward in the future,” Dr. Hong said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, both part of the National Institutes of Health; the Claudia and Steve Stange Family Fund; Genentech; and Novartis. Dr. Hong, Dr. Kim, and Dr. Vickery reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The measles outbreak in Florida, occurring just as health officials announced an official end to Philadelphia’s measles outbreak and rising global cases, has cast attention once again on concerns about vaccine hesitancy. In the midst of Florida’s surgeon general avoiding measles vaccination recommendations for parents, the American Academy of Pediatrics has updated its clinical guidance on vaccine communication.

“Disruption to routine pediatric vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic has left many children vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases and more locations susceptible to outbreaks in the United States and around the world,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and his colleagues, wrote in the new report, published in the March issue of Pediatrics. “Geographic clustering of vaccine refusal further increases the risk of communicable disease outbreaks in certain communities even when vaccination rates at a state or national level remain high overall.”

University of Colorado

The authors note that disease resurgence may bolster vaccine uptake, with media coverage of recent outbreaks linked to more pro-vaccine discussions and attitudes among parents. But the evidence on that remains inconclusive, and the authors point out the slow uptake in COVID-19 vaccination as parents navigate ongoing spread of both the disease and vaccine misinformation.
 

Conflicting Evidence on Postpandemic Attitudes

It remains unclear how parent attitudes toward vaccines have shifted, if at all, since the pandemic. A study published in Pediatrics from October 2023, which Dr. O’Leary also coauthored, analyzed data from an online survey of Colorado mothers between 2018 and 2021 and found no significant difference in vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic compared with pre-pandemic.

Among 3,553 respondents, 1 in 5 (20.4%) were vaccine hesitant overall. Though parents were twice as likely to feel uncertain in trusting vaccine information after the COVID-19 vaccines were authorized (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.14), they were half as likely to be unsure about hesitancy toward childhood vaccines (aOR 0.48).

Another study in Pediatrics from October 2023 found that common concerns about COVID-19 vaccines among parents included infertility, long-term effects from the vaccines, and effects on preexisting medical conditions. But even then, participants in focus groups “expressed that they would listen to their doctor for information about COVID-19 vaccines,” wrote Aubree Honcoop, MPS, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, and her colleagues.

“I think what we’re seeing, very importantly, is that physicians seem to be the source people rely on,” said Walter Orenstein, MD, professor of medicine and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University in Atlanta. “But we need to give the physicians time and incentives to spend time with families,” such as a billing code for vaccine counseling, he said.

Emory University

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Clinical Guidance

The new report reviews previously published evidence on the spectrum of parental vaccine acceptance — from supporters and “go along to get along” parents to cautious acceptors and fence sitters to vaccine refusers — and the determinants that contribute to hesitancy. They also noted the social inequities that have played a role in vaccine uptake disparities.

“Distrust of health systems based on historic and ongoing discrimination and inequitable access to care are intertwined challenges that contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in vaccine uptake,” the authors wrote. “Although there has been progress in reducing racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in childhood vaccination coverage, the COVID-19 pandemic made clear how much work is yet to be done.”

The report also reviewed the societal, individual, payer and pediatric practice costs of vaccine refusal. The 1-year cost to taxpayers from the measles outbreak in New York City in 2018-2019, for example, was $8.4 million, excluding vaccination programs.

The report provides background information to equip pediatricians for conversations with parents about vaccines. Since safety is the top concern for vaccine hesitancy among parents, the authors advised pediatricians to be familiar with the process of vaccine testing, emergency use authorization, licensure, approval, recommendations, and safety monitoring, including the Vaccine Safety Datalink, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the FDA’s Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) system, and the CDC’s Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project (CISA).

“Because vaccines are generally given to healthy individuals to prevent disease, they are held to a higher safety standard than other medications,” the authors wrote before providing a summary of the process for physicians to reference. The report also includes information on vaccine ingredients and a chart of common misconceptions about vaccines with the corresponding facts.
 

Overcoming Hesitancy

Evidence-based strategies for increasing childhood vaccine uptake begin with a strong vaccine recommendation using a presumptive rather than participatory approach, the authors wrote. “A presumptive format is one in which the clinician asserts a position regarding vaccines using a closed-ended statement, such as ‘Sara is due for several vaccines today’ or ‘Well, we have to do some shots,’ ” the authors wrote. “This strategy is in contrast to a participatory format, in which an open-ended question is used to more explicitly invite the parent to voice an opinion, such as ‘How do you feel about vaccines today?’ ” The presumptive format and a strong recommendation are both associated with greater uptake, evidence shows.

For parents who express hesitancy, the authors provide a summary of additional evidence-based communication strategies, starting with motivational interviewing. Two other strategies they highlight include using language to re-emphasize the importance of adhering to the CDC recommended schedule — “He really needs these shots” — and bundling discussion of all recommended vaccines for a visit at once.

“Finally, clinicians can emphasize their own experiences when discussing the need for vaccination, including personal experience with vaccine-preventable diseases and the fact that they and their families are vaccinated because of their confidence in the safety and efficacy of the vaccines,” the authors wrote.

For families who refuse or delay vaccines, the authors reviewed the “ethical arguments both in favor of and against dismissal policies,” noting that nearly all pediatricians who report dismissing families who refuse vaccination are in private practice, since large systems are often unable to dismiss patients. They also point out that fewer pediatricians dismiss families for spreading out vaccines than outright refusing all vaccines.

”Dismissal of child patients of vaccine-refusing parents can be a difficult decision arrived at after considering multiple factors and documented attempts to counsel vaccine-refusing families,” they wrote. “However, if repeated attempts to help understand and address parental values and vaccine concerns fails to engender trust, move parents toward vaccine acceptance, or strengthen the therapeutic alliance, dismissal can be an acceptable option.”

Finally, the authors reminded pediatricians “that vaccine-hesitant parents are a heterogeneous group and that specific parental vaccine concerns need to be individually identified and addressed.” Working with families to discuss their questions and concerns is an opportunity to “build rapport and trust with a family,” they wrote, ”and, ultimately, protect their children from the scourge of vaccine-preventable diseases.”

The focus groups study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the authors reported having no disclosures. The Colorado attitudes study used no external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. The new clinical report used no external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Orenstein is an uncompensated member of the Moderna Scientific Advisory Board. Dr. Offit codeveloped a licensed rotavirus vaccine, but he does not receive any royalties or own a patent for that.

The measles outbreak in Florida, occurring just as health officials announced an official end to Philadelphia’s measles outbreak and rising global cases, has cast attention once again on concerns about vaccine hesitancy. In the midst of Florida’s surgeon general avoiding measles vaccination recommendations for parents, the American Academy of Pediatrics has updated its clinical guidance on vaccine communication.

“Disruption to routine pediatric vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic has left many children vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases and more locations susceptible to outbreaks in the United States and around the world,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and his colleagues, wrote in the new report, published in the March issue of Pediatrics. “Geographic clustering of vaccine refusal further increases the risk of communicable disease outbreaks in certain communities even when vaccination rates at a state or national level remain high overall.”

University of Colorado

The authors note that disease resurgence may bolster vaccine uptake, with media coverage of recent outbreaks linked to more pro-vaccine discussions and attitudes among parents. But the evidence on that remains inconclusive, and the authors point out the slow uptake in COVID-19 vaccination as parents navigate ongoing spread of both the disease and vaccine misinformation.
 

Conflicting Evidence on Postpandemic Attitudes

It remains unclear how parent attitudes toward vaccines have shifted, if at all, since the pandemic. A study published in Pediatrics from October 2023, which Dr. O’Leary also coauthored, analyzed data from an online survey of Colorado mothers between 2018 and 2021 and found no significant difference in vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic compared with pre-pandemic.

Among 3,553 respondents, 1 in 5 (20.4%) were vaccine hesitant overall. Though parents were twice as likely to feel uncertain in trusting vaccine information after the COVID-19 vaccines were authorized (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.14), they were half as likely to be unsure about hesitancy toward childhood vaccines (aOR 0.48).

Another study in Pediatrics from October 2023 found that common concerns about COVID-19 vaccines among parents included infertility, long-term effects from the vaccines, and effects on preexisting medical conditions. But even then, participants in focus groups “expressed that they would listen to their doctor for information about COVID-19 vaccines,” wrote Aubree Honcoop, MPS, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, and her colleagues.

“I think what we’re seeing, very importantly, is that physicians seem to be the source people rely on,” said Walter Orenstein, MD, professor of medicine and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University in Atlanta. “But we need to give the physicians time and incentives to spend time with families,” such as a billing code for vaccine counseling, he said.

Emory University

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Clinical Guidance

The new report reviews previously published evidence on the spectrum of parental vaccine acceptance — from supporters and “go along to get along” parents to cautious acceptors and fence sitters to vaccine refusers — and the determinants that contribute to hesitancy. They also noted the social inequities that have played a role in vaccine uptake disparities.

“Distrust of health systems based on historic and ongoing discrimination and inequitable access to care are intertwined challenges that contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in vaccine uptake,” the authors wrote. “Although there has been progress in reducing racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in childhood vaccination coverage, the COVID-19 pandemic made clear how much work is yet to be done.”

The report also reviewed the societal, individual, payer and pediatric practice costs of vaccine refusal. The 1-year cost to taxpayers from the measles outbreak in New York City in 2018-2019, for example, was $8.4 million, excluding vaccination programs.

The report provides background information to equip pediatricians for conversations with parents about vaccines. Since safety is the top concern for vaccine hesitancy among parents, the authors advised pediatricians to be familiar with the process of vaccine testing, emergency use authorization, licensure, approval, recommendations, and safety monitoring, including the Vaccine Safety Datalink, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the FDA’s Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) system, and the CDC’s Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project (CISA).

“Because vaccines are generally given to healthy individuals to prevent disease, they are held to a higher safety standard than other medications,” the authors wrote before providing a summary of the process for physicians to reference. The report also includes information on vaccine ingredients and a chart of common misconceptions about vaccines with the corresponding facts.
 

Overcoming Hesitancy

Evidence-based strategies for increasing childhood vaccine uptake begin with a strong vaccine recommendation using a presumptive rather than participatory approach, the authors wrote. “A presumptive format is one in which the clinician asserts a position regarding vaccines using a closed-ended statement, such as ‘Sara is due for several vaccines today’ or ‘Well, we have to do some shots,’ ” the authors wrote. “This strategy is in contrast to a participatory format, in which an open-ended question is used to more explicitly invite the parent to voice an opinion, such as ‘How do you feel about vaccines today?’ ” The presumptive format and a strong recommendation are both associated with greater uptake, evidence shows.

For parents who express hesitancy, the authors provide a summary of additional evidence-based communication strategies, starting with motivational interviewing. Two other strategies they highlight include using language to re-emphasize the importance of adhering to the CDC recommended schedule — “He really needs these shots” — and bundling discussion of all recommended vaccines for a visit at once.

“Finally, clinicians can emphasize their own experiences when discussing the need for vaccination, including personal experience with vaccine-preventable diseases and the fact that they and their families are vaccinated because of their confidence in the safety and efficacy of the vaccines,” the authors wrote.

For families who refuse or delay vaccines, the authors reviewed the “ethical arguments both in favor of and against dismissal policies,” noting that nearly all pediatricians who report dismissing families who refuse vaccination are in private practice, since large systems are often unable to dismiss patients. They also point out that fewer pediatricians dismiss families for spreading out vaccines than outright refusing all vaccines.

”Dismissal of child patients of vaccine-refusing parents can be a difficult decision arrived at after considering multiple factors and documented attempts to counsel vaccine-refusing families,” they wrote. “However, if repeated attempts to help understand and address parental values and vaccine concerns fails to engender trust, move parents toward vaccine acceptance, or strengthen the therapeutic alliance, dismissal can be an acceptable option.”

Finally, the authors reminded pediatricians “that vaccine-hesitant parents are a heterogeneous group and that specific parental vaccine concerns need to be individually identified and addressed.” Working with families to discuss their questions and concerns is an opportunity to “build rapport and trust with a family,” they wrote, ”and, ultimately, protect their children from the scourge of vaccine-preventable diseases.”

The focus groups study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the authors reported having no disclosures. The Colorado attitudes study used no external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. The new clinical report used no external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Orenstein is an uncompensated member of the Moderna Scientific Advisory Board. Dr. Offit codeveloped a licensed rotavirus vaccine, but he does not receive any royalties or own a patent for that.

The measles outbreak in Florida, occurring just as health officials announced an official end to Philadelphia’s measles outbreak and rising global cases, has cast attention once again on concerns about vaccine hesitancy. In the midst of Florida’s surgeon general avoiding measles vaccination recommendations for parents, the American Academy of Pediatrics has updated its clinical guidance on vaccine communication.

“Disruption to routine pediatric vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic has left many children vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases and more locations susceptible to outbreaks in the United States and around the world,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and his colleagues, wrote in the new report, published in the March issue of Pediatrics. “Geographic clustering of vaccine refusal further increases the risk of communicable disease outbreaks in certain communities even when vaccination rates at a state or national level remain high overall.”

University of Colorado

The authors note that disease resurgence may bolster vaccine uptake, with media coverage of recent outbreaks linked to more pro-vaccine discussions and attitudes among parents. But the evidence on that remains inconclusive, and the authors point out the slow uptake in COVID-19 vaccination as parents navigate ongoing spread of both the disease and vaccine misinformation.
 

Conflicting Evidence on Postpandemic Attitudes

It remains unclear how parent attitudes toward vaccines have shifted, if at all, since the pandemic. A study published in Pediatrics from October 2023, which Dr. O’Leary also coauthored, analyzed data from an online survey of Colorado mothers between 2018 and 2021 and found no significant difference in vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic compared with pre-pandemic.

Among 3,553 respondents, 1 in 5 (20.4%) were vaccine hesitant overall. Though parents were twice as likely to feel uncertain in trusting vaccine information after the COVID-19 vaccines were authorized (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.14), they were half as likely to be unsure about hesitancy toward childhood vaccines (aOR 0.48).

Another study in Pediatrics from October 2023 found that common concerns about COVID-19 vaccines among parents included infertility, long-term effects from the vaccines, and effects on preexisting medical conditions. But even then, participants in focus groups “expressed that they would listen to their doctor for information about COVID-19 vaccines,” wrote Aubree Honcoop, MPS, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, and her colleagues.

“I think what we’re seeing, very importantly, is that physicians seem to be the source people rely on,” said Walter Orenstein, MD, professor of medicine and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University in Atlanta. “But we need to give the physicians time and incentives to spend time with families,” such as a billing code for vaccine counseling, he said.

Emory University

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Clinical Guidance

The new report reviews previously published evidence on the spectrum of parental vaccine acceptance — from supporters and “go along to get along” parents to cautious acceptors and fence sitters to vaccine refusers — and the determinants that contribute to hesitancy. They also noted the social inequities that have played a role in vaccine uptake disparities.

“Distrust of health systems based on historic and ongoing discrimination and inequitable access to care are intertwined challenges that contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in vaccine uptake,” the authors wrote. “Although there has been progress in reducing racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in childhood vaccination coverage, the COVID-19 pandemic made clear how much work is yet to be done.”

The report also reviewed the societal, individual, payer and pediatric practice costs of vaccine refusal. The 1-year cost to taxpayers from the measles outbreak in New York City in 2018-2019, for example, was $8.4 million, excluding vaccination programs.

The report provides background information to equip pediatricians for conversations with parents about vaccines. Since safety is the top concern for vaccine hesitancy among parents, the authors advised pediatricians to be familiar with the process of vaccine testing, emergency use authorization, licensure, approval, recommendations, and safety monitoring, including the Vaccine Safety Datalink, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the FDA’s Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) system, and the CDC’s Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project (CISA).

“Because vaccines are generally given to healthy individuals to prevent disease, they are held to a higher safety standard than other medications,” the authors wrote before providing a summary of the process for physicians to reference. The report also includes information on vaccine ingredients and a chart of common misconceptions about vaccines with the corresponding facts.
 

Overcoming Hesitancy

Evidence-based strategies for increasing childhood vaccine uptake begin with a strong vaccine recommendation using a presumptive rather than participatory approach, the authors wrote. “A presumptive format is one in which the clinician asserts a position regarding vaccines using a closed-ended statement, such as ‘Sara is due for several vaccines today’ or ‘Well, we have to do some shots,’ ” the authors wrote. “This strategy is in contrast to a participatory format, in which an open-ended question is used to more explicitly invite the parent to voice an opinion, such as ‘How do you feel about vaccines today?’ ” The presumptive format and a strong recommendation are both associated with greater uptake, evidence shows.

For parents who express hesitancy, the authors provide a summary of additional evidence-based communication strategies, starting with motivational interviewing. Two other strategies they highlight include using language to re-emphasize the importance of adhering to the CDC recommended schedule — “He really needs these shots” — and bundling discussion of all recommended vaccines for a visit at once.

“Finally, clinicians can emphasize their own experiences when discussing the need for vaccination, including personal experience with vaccine-preventable diseases and the fact that they and their families are vaccinated because of their confidence in the safety and efficacy of the vaccines,” the authors wrote.

For families who refuse or delay vaccines, the authors reviewed the “ethical arguments both in favor of and against dismissal policies,” noting that nearly all pediatricians who report dismissing families who refuse vaccination are in private practice, since large systems are often unable to dismiss patients. They also point out that fewer pediatricians dismiss families for spreading out vaccines than outright refusing all vaccines.

”Dismissal of child patients of vaccine-refusing parents can be a difficult decision arrived at after considering multiple factors and documented attempts to counsel vaccine-refusing families,” they wrote. “However, if repeated attempts to help understand and address parental values and vaccine concerns fails to engender trust, move parents toward vaccine acceptance, or strengthen the therapeutic alliance, dismissal can be an acceptable option.”

Finally, the authors reminded pediatricians “that vaccine-hesitant parents are a heterogeneous group and that specific parental vaccine concerns need to be individually identified and addressed.” Working with families to discuss their questions and concerns is an opportunity to “build rapport and trust with a family,” they wrote, ”and, ultimately, protect their children from the scourge of vaccine-preventable diseases.”

The focus groups study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the authors reported having no disclosures. The Colorado attitudes study used no external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. The new clinical report used no external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Orenstein is an uncompensated member of the Moderna Scientific Advisory Board. Dr. Offit codeveloped a licensed rotavirus vaccine, but he does not receive any royalties or own a patent for that.

TOPLINE:

A new study shows young children with October birthdays may have better protection against flu. Children tend to receive vaccinations at regular preventive visits the month they were born, and October happens to be an optimal time to get the flu vaccine, the researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the MarketScan Research Database between 2011 and 2018.
• They focused on 819,223 children aged 2-5 years who were vaccinated against influenza between August 1 and January 31 and whose birthdays fell during that window.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children born in October had the lowest rate of influenza diagnosis, with an average diagnosis rate of 2.7%, whereas those born in August had a diagnosis rate of 3%.
• Compared with children born in August, the adjusted odds ratio for influenza diagnosis in children born in October was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings support current recommendations that children be vaccinated in October preceding a typical influenza season,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, with Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, was the corresponding author on the study. The research was published online in BMJ .

LIMITATIONS:

The availability of the influenza vaccine and the peak of seasonal flu infections vary by year and region.

DISCLOSURES:

Researchers disclosed consulting fees from pharmaceutical and healthcare companies unrelated to the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study shows young children with October birthdays may have better protection against flu. Children tend to receive vaccinations at regular preventive visits the month they were born, and October happens to be an optimal time to get the flu vaccine, the researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the MarketScan Research Database between 2011 and 2018.
• They focused on 819,223 children aged 2-5 years who were vaccinated against influenza between August 1 and January 31 and whose birthdays fell during that window.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children born in October had the lowest rate of influenza diagnosis, with an average diagnosis rate of 2.7%, whereas those born in August had a diagnosis rate of 3%.
• Compared with children born in August, the adjusted odds ratio for influenza diagnosis in children born in October was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings support current recommendations that children be vaccinated in October preceding a typical influenza season,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, with Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, was the corresponding author on the study. The research was published online in BMJ .

LIMITATIONS:

The availability of the influenza vaccine and the peak of seasonal flu infections vary by year and region.

DISCLOSURES:

Researchers disclosed consulting fees from pharmaceutical and healthcare companies unrelated to the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study shows young children with October birthdays may have better protection against flu. Children tend to receive vaccinations at regular preventive visits the month they were born, and October happens to be an optimal time to get the flu vaccine, the researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the MarketScan Research Database between 2011 and 2018.
• They focused on 819,223 children aged 2-5 years who were vaccinated against influenza between August 1 and January 31 and whose birthdays fell during that window.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children born in October had the lowest rate of influenza diagnosis, with an average diagnosis rate of 2.7%, whereas those born in August had a diagnosis rate of 3%.
• Compared with children born in August, the adjusted odds ratio for influenza diagnosis in children born in October was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings support current recommendations that children be vaccinated in October preceding a typical influenza season,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, with Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, was the corresponding author on the study. The research was published online in BMJ .

LIMITATIONS:

The availability of the influenza vaccine and the peak of seasonal flu infections vary by year and region.

DISCLOSURES:

Researchers disclosed consulting fees from pharmaceutical and healthcare companies unrelated to the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.

Increasingly, they’re turning to apps and automated systems like DearDoc, Rater8, and LoyalHealth that ask satisfied patients to post reviews. The goal: To counteract the effect of negative reviews.

Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.

Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.

Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.

“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”

Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”

How Automated Systems Work

A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.

Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.

Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)

“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”

But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.

He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.

Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”

Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”

He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.

What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?

“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.

Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.

Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”

Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”

Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.

Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?

Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.

Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.

Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.

Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.

By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.

Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.

How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.

Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?

Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.

Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”

“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”

Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.

Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.

Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.

Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.

Conclusion

Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.

Increasingly, they’re turning to apps and automated systems like DearDoc, Rater8, and LoyalHealth that ask satisfied patients to post reviews. The goal: To counteract the effect of negative reviews.

Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.

Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.

Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.

“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”

Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”

How Automated Systems Work

A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.

Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.

Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)

“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”

But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.

He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.

Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”

Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”

He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.

What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?

“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.

Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.

Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”

Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”

Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.

Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?

Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.

Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.

Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.

Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.

By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.

Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.

How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.

Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?

Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.

Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”

“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”

Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.

Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.

Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.

Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.

Conclusion

Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.

Increasingly, they’re turning to apps and automated systems like DearDoc, Rater8, and LoyalHealth that ask satisfied patients to post reviews. The goal: To counteract the effect of negative reviews.

Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.

Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.

Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.

“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”

Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”

How Automated Systems Work

A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.

Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.

Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)

“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”

But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.

He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.

Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”

Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”

He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.

What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?

“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.

Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.

Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”

Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”

Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.

Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?

Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.

Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.

Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.

Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.

By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.

Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.

How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.

Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?

Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.

Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”

“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”

Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.

Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.

Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.

Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.

Conclusion

Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In this February’s issue of the journal Pediatrics there is an interesting paper that explores the demographics and sleep environments of the more than 8000 sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) victims who died in the United States between 2011 and 2020. The authors’ broad conclusion was “Most SUID, regardless of sleep location, had multiple unsafe sleep factors present demonstrating the need for comprehensive sleep counseling for every family at every encounter.”

From the perspective of a former busy primary care physician I shudder when I read a statement this broad because it doesn’t acknowledge the realities of my professional life. A sentence containing “comprehensive” and two “every’s” won’t be taken seriously by most of the practicing pediatricians I know. However, there is an abundance of information generated by these investigators that could help a pediatrician target his advice to the individual families in his practice without having to resort to time-consuming comprehensive counseling, which is likely to sound like just so much chatter to families overwhelmed by the new challenge of raising a child.

For example, nearly 60% of SUID cases were sharing a sleep surface when they died, and surface-sharing infants were more likely to not have a crib in their home. It seems to me that one should start with the simple question, “Do your have a crib in your home ... in all the homes where the baby will sleep?” And, it should be asked in the hospital prior to discharge.

In 1993, our second-born daughter went home from a teaching hospital in a cardboard box. So did all of her nursery mates. It was decorated with a stork motif and had served as her bassinet. Since early in the last century, families in Finland have been offered a similar box filled with baby supplies. Shrinkflation has caused a scale back in its contents, but the box itself has remained as a safe and inexpensive sleep surface for income-challenged families.

Many babies in this country are put to sleep in a variety of places as they are shuttled around to where the inexpensive childcare is available. Offering families as many boxes as they need may avoid the tragedy of their infant smothering on Aunt Louise’s couch or Cousin Martha’s bed littered with pillows. This is particularly important in a family with multiples (twins, triplets, etc.) who are overrepresented in the SUID population. The opening question about crib availability is likely to alert the healthcare provider to a social situation dominated by poverty that may include lower parental education and a higher likelihood of residential insecurity, all of which are associated with surface-sharing.

The authors observe “surface-sharing in and of itself may not be what caregiver education should focus on.” A simple cardboard box, however, is not a sleep surface likely to be shared with an adult.

For the families for whom surface-sharing is a choice and not a necessity, the investigators encourage us to engage families on their motivation for surface-sharing. This is a discussion that clinicians should be initiating, regardless of our concern of SUID prevention, by simply asking “How are you and your baby sleeping?” Is the baby being nursed to sleep? Where? While the authors acknowledge that their raw data did not allow them to make any observations on a relationship between surface-sharing and breastfeeding, my anecdotal observations have found an unfortunate number of mothers who have become human pacifiers for their babies and are co-sleeping. This association can result in a sleep-deprived parent(s) with unhealthy consequences. Although it can be difficult to uncouple breastfeeding from settling, early intervention triggered by asking a simple question can improve the chances of resolution.

Although I may quibble with the wording of authors’ final conclusion, this is an excellent paper worth looking at. SUID while infrequent and for the most part still mysterious is a tragedy that we should be able to prevent.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

In this February’s issue of the journal Pediatrics there is an interesting paper that explores the demographics and sleep environments of the more than 8000 sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) victims who died in the United States between 2011 and 2020. The authors’ broad conclusion was “Most SUID, regardless of sleep location, had multiple unsafe sleep factors present demonstrating the need for comprehensive sleep counseling for every family at every encounter.”

From the perspective of a former busy primary care physician I shudder when I read a statement this broad because it doesn’t acknowledge the realities of my professional life. A sentence containing “comprehensive” and two “every’s” won’t be taken seriously by most of the practicing pediatricians I know. However, there is an abundance of information generated by these investigators that could help a pediatrician target his advice to the individual families in his practice without having to resort to time-consuming comprehensive counseling, which is likely to sound like just so much chatter to families overwhelmed by the new challenge of raising a child.

For example, nearly 60% of SUID cases were sharing a sleep surface when they died, and surface-sharing infants were more likely to not have a crib in their home. It seems to me that one should start with the simple question, “Do your have a crib in your home ... in all the homes where the baby will sleep?” And, it should be asked in the hospital prior to discharge.

In 1993, our second-born daughter went home from a teaching hospital in a cardboard box. So did all of her nursery mates. It was decorated with a stork motif and had served as her bassinet. Since early in the last century, families in Finland have been offered a similar box filled with baby supplies. Shrinkflation has caused a scale back in its contents, but the box itself has remained as a safe and inexpensive sleep surface for income-challenged families.

Many babies in this country are put to sleep in a variety of places as they are shuttled around to where the inexpensive childcare is available. Offering families as many boxes as they need may avoid the tragedy of their infant smothering on Aunt Louise’s couch or Cousin Martha’s bed littered with pillows. This is particularly important in a family with multiples (twins, triplets, etc.) who are overrepresented in the SUID population. The opening question about crib availability is likely to alert the healthcare provider to a social situation dominated by poverty that may include lower parental education and a higher likelihood of residential insecurity, all of which are associated with surface-sharing.

The authors observe “surface-sharing in and of itself may not be what caregiver education should focus on.” A simple cardboard box, however, is not a sleep surface likely to be shared with an adult.

For the families for whom surface-sharing is a choice and not a necessity, the investigators encourage us to engage families on their motivation for surface-sharing. This is a discussion that clinicians should be initiating, regardless of our concern of SUID prevention, by simply asking “How are you and your baby sleeping?” Is the baby being nursed to sleep? Where? While the authors acknowledge that their raw data did not allow them to make any observations on a relationship between surface-sharing and breastfeeding, my anecdotal observations have found an unfortunate number of mothers who have become human pacifiers for their babies and are co-sleeping. This association can result in a sleep-deprived parent(s) with unhealthy consequences. Although it can be difficult to uncouple breastfeeding from settling, early intervention triggered by asking a simple question can improve the chances of resolution.

Although I may quibble with the wording of authors’ final conclusion, this is an excellent paper worth looking at. SUID while infrequent and for the most part still mysterious is a tragedy that we should be able to prevent.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

In this February’s issue of the journal Pediatrics there is an interesting paper that explores the demographics and sleep environments of the more than 8000 sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) victims who died in the United States between 2011 and 2020. The authors’ broad conclusion was “Most SUID, regardless of sleep location, had multiple unsafe sleep factors present demonstrating the need for comprehensive sleep counseling for every family at every encounter.”

From the perspective of a former busy primary care physician I shudder when I read a statement this broad because it doesn’t acknowledge the realities of my professional life. A sentence containing “comprehensive” and two “every’s” won’t be taken seriously by most of the practicing pediatricians I know. However, there is an abundance of information generated by these investigators that could help a pediatrician target his advice to the individual families in his practice without having to resort to time-consuming comprehensive counseling, which is likely to sound like just so much chatter to families overwhelmed by the new challenge of raising a child.

For example, nearly 60% of SUID cases were sharing a sleep surface when they died, and surface-sharing infants were more likely to not have a crib in their home. It seems to me that one should start with the simple question, “Do your have a crib in your home ... in all the homes where the baby will sleep?” And, it should be asked in the hospital prior to discharge.

In 1993, our second-born daughter went home from a teaching hospital in a cardboard box. So did all of her nursery mates. It was decorated with a stork motif and had served as her bassinet. Since early in the last century, families in Finland have been offered a similar box filled with baby supplies. Shrinkflation has caused a scale back in its contents, but the box itself has remained as a safe and inexpensive sleep surface for income-challenged families.

Many babies in this country are put to sleep in a variety of places as they are shuttled around to where the inexpensive childcare is available. Offering families as many boxes as they need may avoid the tragedy of their infant smothering on Aunt Louise’s couch or Cousin Martha’s bed littered with pillows. This is particularly important in a family with multiples (twins, triplets, etc.) who are overrepresented in the SUID population. The opening question about crib availability is likely to alert the healthcare provider to a social situation dominated by poverty that may include lower parental education and a higher likelihood of residential insecurity, all of which are associated with surface-sharing.

The authors observe “surface-sharing in and of itself may not be what caregiver education should focus on.” A simple cardboard box, however, is not a sleep surface likely to be shared with an adult.

For the families for whom surface-sharing is a choice and not a necessity, the investigators encourage us to engage families on their motivation for surface-sharing. This is a discussion that clinicians should be initiating, regardless of our concern of SUID prevention, by simply asking “How are you and your baby sleeping?” Is the baby being nursed to sleep? Where? While the authors acknowledge that their raw data did not allow them to make any observations on a relationship between surface-sharing and breastfeeding, my anecdotal observations have found an unfortunate number of mothers who have become human pacifiers for their babies and are co-sleeping. This association can result in a sleep-deprived parent(s) with unhealthy consequences. Although it can be difficult to uncouple breastfeeding from settling, early intervention triggered by asking a simple question can improve the chances of resolution.

Although I may quibble with the wording of authors’ final conclusion, this is an excellent paper worth looking at. SUID while infrequent and for the most part still mysterious is a tragedy that we should be able to prevent.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

TOPLINE:

A national study in Israel demonstrates the feasibility and diagnostic benefits of rapid trio genome sequencing in critically ill neonates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective, multicenter cohort study from October 2021 to December 2022, involving all Israeli medical genetics institutes and neonatal intensive care units.
• A total of 130 critically ill neonates suspected of having a genetic disorder were enrolled, with rapid genome sequencing results expected within 10 days.

TAKEAWAY:

• Rapid trio genome sequencing diagnosed 50% of the neonates with disease-causing variants, including 12 chromosomal and 52 monogenic conditions.
• Another 11% had variants of unknown significance that were suspected to be disease-causing, and 1% had a novel gene suspected of causing disease.
• The mean turnaround time for the rapid reports was 7 days, demonstrating the feasibility of implementing rapid genome sequencing in a national healthcare setting, the researchers said.
• Genomic testing led to a change in clinical management for 22% of the neonates, which shows the clinical utility of this approach to diagnosis, they said.

IN PRACTICE:

Genetic testing may identify patients who are candidates for precision medical treatment and inform family planning, which is “critical for families with a severely affected or deceased child,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The corresponding author for the study was Daphna Marom, MD, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. It was published online on February 22, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on voluntary participation may have introduced referral bias, potentially affecting the diagnostic rates. The long-term impact of diagnosis on survival, growth, and development remains to be evaluated. Bioinformatics tools have limitations, as shown by the missed detection of maternal uniparental disomy in one case of a hypotonic infant with Prader-Willi syndrome, the researchers noted. Clinical judgment is still essential, they said.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was sponsored by a collaboration between the Israeli Ministry of Health, Illumina, and the Genomics Center at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. Illumina provided reagents, bioinformatics tools, and editorial assistance. Study authors disclosed financial ties to Illumina.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A national study in Israel demonstrates the feasibility and diagnostic benefits of rapid trio genome sequencing in critically ill neonates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective, multicenter cohort study from October 2021 to December 2022, involving all Israeli medical genetics institutes and neonatal intensive care units.
• A total of 130 critically ill neonates suspected of having a genetic disorder were enrolled, with rapid genome sequencing results expected within 10 days.

TAKEAWAY:

• Rapid trio genome sequencing diagnosed 50% of the neonates with disease-causing variants, including 12 chromosomal and 52 monogenic conditions.
• Another 11% had variants of unknown significance that were suspected to be disease-causing, and 1% had a novel gene suspected of causing disease.
• The mean turnaround time for the rapid reports was 7 days, demonstrating the feasibility of implementing rapid genome sequencing in a national healthcare setting, the researchers said.
• Genomic testing led to a change in clinical management for 22% of the neonates, which shows the clinical utility of this approach to diagnosis, they said.

IN PRACTICE:

Genetic testing may identify patients who are candidates for precision medical treatment and inform family planning, which is “critical for families with a severely affected or deceased child,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The corresponding author for the study was Daphna Marom, MD, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. It was published online on February 22, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on voluntary participation may have introduced referral bias, potentially affecting the diagnostic rates. The long-term impact of diagnosis on survival, growth, and development remains to be evaluated. Bioinformatics tools have limitations, as shown by the missed detection of maternal uniparental disomy in one case of a hypotonic infant with Prader-Willi syndrome, the researchers noted. Clinical judgment is still essential, they said.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was sponsored by a collaboration between the Israeli Ministry of Health, Illumina, and the Genomics Center at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. Illumina provided reagents, bioinformatics tools, and editorial assistance. Study authors disclosed financial ties to Illumina.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A national study in Israel demonstrates the feasibility and diagnostic benefits of rapid trio genome sequencing in critically ill neonates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective, multicenter cohort study from October 2021 to December 2022, involving all Israeli medical genetics institutes and neonatal intensive care units.
• A total of 130 critically ill neonates suspected of having a genetic disorder were enrolled, with rapid genome sequencing results expected within 10 days.

TAKEAWAY:

• Rapid trio genome sequencing diagnosed 50% of the neonates with disease-causing variants, including 12 chromosomal and 52 monogenic conditions.
• Another 11% had variants of unknown significance that were suspected to be disease-causing, and 1% had a novel gene suspected of causing disease.
• The mean turnaround time for the rapid reports was 7 days, demonstrating the feasibility of implementing rapid genome sequencing in a national healthcare setting, the researchers said.
• Genomic testing led to a change in clinical management for 22% of the neonates, which shows the clinical utility of this approach to diagnosis, they said.

IN PRACTICE:

Genetic testing may identify patients who are candidates for precision medical treatment and inform family planning, which is “critical for families with a severely affected or deceased child,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The corresponding author for the study was Daphna Marom, MD, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. It was published online on February 22, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on voluntary participation may have introduced referral bias, potentially affecting the diagnostic rates. The long-term impact of diagnosis on survival, growth, and development remains to be evaluated. Bioinformatics tools have limitations, as shown by the missed detection of maternal uniparental disomy in one case of a hypotonic infant with Prader-Willi syndrome, the researchers noted. Clinical judgment is still essential, they said.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was sponsored by a collaboration between the Israeli Ministry of Health, Illumina, and the Genomics Center at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. Illumina provided reagents, bioinformatics tools, and editorial assistance. Study authors disclosed financial ties to Illumina.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid an ongoing measles outbreak in Florida possibly sparked by vaccine hesitancy, the state’s surgeon general Joseph Ladapo, MD, is contradicting public health guidance of encouraging quarantine of unvaccinated children. 

Rather than requesting that parents keep children unvaccinated against measles home from school or to get their children vaccinated, both critical tools in containing an outbreak, Dr. Ladapo has advised parents to do whatever they think is best. Pediatricians and infectious disease specialists fear a free-for-all will fuel the spread of the highly infectious virus, including in their own clinics. 

The outbreak has been traced to an elementary school in Weston and has so far sickened at least eight children, one of whom is younger than 5 years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, roughly 91% of the 230,000-odd kindergarteners in Florida had received the requisite doses of the MMR vaccine, which also protects against mumps and rubella, for the 2022-2023 school year, below the 95% vaccination level which public health authorities believes confers herd immunity against measles. An estimated 4.5% of kindergarteners in the state have received an exemption for the vaccine, which prevents measles in 97% of the people who get the shots, for a lifetime. The first dose is given around age 13 months and the second when people are age 4 or 5 years and soon to enter school.

“If you’re vaccinated you have a very slim chance of getting the virus,” said Rana Alissa, MD, a pediatrician at University of Florida Health in Jacksonville.

An unvaccinated child has no protection against measles, and could spread it to others merely by sneezing or touching a surface. In a school setting, infection could spread to a teacher who cannot receive the measles vaccine due to a weakened immune system, or the unvaccinated child could spread the virus at a pediatric clinic or hospital when seeking care for measles unless the clinic staff takes rigorous steps to separate the child from other children. Some children at the clinic won’t be able to get the measles vaccine either because of immunodeficiency or perhaps having had a bone marrow transplant. 

Assuming the unvaccinated child is healthy, the measles infection will run its course, and the child will then be immune to the disease, Dr. Alissa said. But meanwhile, the child could pose a significant risk to others. 

“We’re not worried about the unvaccinated kids who are very healthy. We’re worried about the adults who did not get vaccinated and who are very sick,” said Dr. Alissa, vice president of the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). “We’re worried about the little kids who are less than 13 months old. We’re worried about the kids with immunodeficiency disorders.” The Florida chapter of the AAP encourages parents to get their children vaccinated against measles amid the ongoing outbreak.

“I wish our surgeon general was on the same page as us,” Dr. Alissa added, noting that she thinks misplaced vaccine hesitancy has caused some parents to forego a safe and effective vaccine for their children.
 

Never Too Late to Vaxx

Measles symptoms appear 10-14 days after exposure and can include sore throat, cough, runny nose, inflamed eyes, fever, and blotchy skin rashes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 20% of people who are unvaccinated against measles will be hospitalized for the virus if they contract it.

Given the incubation period for the virus, clinicians and public health officials recommend unvaccinated children isolate for 21 days after being exposed to measles at school. The advice applies to any unvaccinated child, whether because their parent opted against the vaccine or because they cannot safely receive the immunization.

This is the guidance that Surgeon General Ladapo is flouting.

“We have a public health system. They’re awesome. They’re the experts. Let’s use them,” Dr. Alissa noted. “Their recommendation is to keep the unvaccinated kids at home for 21 days when you have an outbreak.” 

“We’re not calling him doctor anymore,” said Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. 

“Getting your kids immunized before they enter school is so critical,” added Dr. Pavia, because the 21-day quarantine period is onerous for children and parents alike.

In a February 26 statement, Marcus Plescia, MD, MPH, chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, said “well-established public health practice recommends that unvaccinated persons exposed to measles stay home for at least 21 days to prevent further growth of the outbreak. While this is undoubtedly disruptive to the persons impacted, imagine how much more disruptive it would be if measles takes hold again in the United States, spreading widely, and impacting children and communities across the entire nation.”

During an outbreak, it’s still possible to give a measles vaccine to a child who has not yet received the shots, Dr. Pavia stressed. But time is of the essence: Vaccination should occur within 72 hours of the first known measles case in a school.

“It’s not perfect, they may still get measles, but it will greatly decrease the severity,” Dr. Pavia said.

If some children won’t get vaccinated during an outbreak, their parents may call a pediatrician or hospital staff for help as measles symptoms take hold. Clinicians should advise everyone in the home who is older than 2 years to begin wearing N95 masks and gloves, Dr. Alissa said. And when the child comes into the clinic he or she should be examined in a separate room, ideally one with negative air pressure and frequent filtration, Dr. Alissa added. If not, any private room will do if nobody else uses the room for at least 2 hours afterward.

“Measles is phenomenally transmissible,” Dr. Pavia said. A person with the virus can infect 12 to 18 others who are not protected against the pathogen. 

Someone with a severe reaction to measles could get an injection of intramuscular immunoglobulin, Dr. Pavia said, although this tends to be uncomfortable and expensive.

“The vaccine works. We almost got rid of measles,” Dr. Alissa said, although parents who choose to send their unvaccinated children to school can do so if they choose to.

“The fear of every pediatrician is to have a child die from this,” she said. “People who are sick, please stay at home.” 

Dr. Pavia reported an advisory relationship with Sanofi Pasteur regarding an RSV vaccine. Dr. Alissa reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid an ongoing measles outbreak in Florida possibly sparked by vaccine hesitancy, the state’s surgeon general Joseph Ladapo, MD, is contradicting public health guidance of encouraging quarantine of unvaccinated children. 

Rather than requesting that parents keep children unvaccinated against measles home from school or to get their children vaccinated, both critical tools in containing an outbreak, Dr. Ladapo has advised parents to do whatever they think is best. Pediatricians and infectious disease specialists fear a free-for-all will fuel the spread of the highly infectious virus, including in their own clinics. 

The outbreak has been traced to an elementary school in Weston and has so far sickened at least eight children, one of whom is younger than 5 years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, roughly 91% of the 230,000-odd kindergarteners in Florida had received the requisite doses of the MMR vaccine, which also protects against mumps and rubella, for the 2022-2023 school year, below the 95% vaccination level which public health authorities believes confers herd immunity against measles. An estimated 4.5% of kindergarteners in the state have received an exemption for the vaccine, which prevents measles in 97% of the people who get the shots, for a lifetime. The first dose is given around age 13 months and the second when people are age 4 or 5 years and soon to enter school.

“If you’re vaccinated you have a very slim chance of getting the virus,” said Rana Alissa, MD, a pediatrician at University of Florida Health in Jacksonville.

An unvaccinated child has no protection against measles, and could spread it to others merely by sneezing or touching a surface. In a school setting, infection could spread to a teacher who cannot receive the measles vaccine due to a weakened immune system, or the unvaccinated child could spread the virus at a pediatric clinic or hospital when seeking care for measles unless the clinic staff takes rigorous steps to separate the child from other children. Some children at the clinic won’t be able to get the measles vaccine either because of immunodeficiency or perhaps having had a bone marrow transplant. 

Assuming the unvaccinated child is healthy, the measles infection will run its course, and the child will then be immune to the disease, Dr. Alissa said. But meanwhile, the child could pose a significant risk to others. 

“We’re not worried about the unvaccinated kids who are very healthy. We’re worried about the adults who did not get vaccinated and who are very sick,” said Dr. Alissa, vice president of the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). “We’re worried about the little kids who are less than 13 months old. We’re worried about the kids with immunodeficiency disorders.” The Florida chapter of the AAP encourages parents to get their children vaccinated against measles amid the ongoing outbreak.

“I wish our surgeon general was on the same page as us,” Dr. Alissa added, noting that she thinks misplaced vaccine hesitancy has caused some parents to forego a safe and effective vaccine for their children.
 

Never Too Late to Vaxx

Measles symptoms appear 10-14 days after exposure and can include sore throat, cough, runny nose, inflamed eyes, fever, and blotchy skin rashes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 20% of people who are unvaccinated against measles will be hospitalized for the virus if they contract it.

Given the incubation period for the virus, clinicians and public health officials recommend unvaccinated children isolate for 21 days after being exposed to measles at school. The advice applies to any unvaccinated child, whether because their parent opted against the vaccine or because they cannot safely receive the immunization.

This is the guidance that Surgeon General Ladapo is flouting.

“We have a public health system. They’re awesome. They’re the experts. Let’s use them,” Dr. Alissa noted. “Their recommendation is to keep the unvaccinated kids at home for 21 days when you have an outbreak.” 

“We’re not calling him doctor anymore,” said Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. 

“Getting your kids immunized before they enter school is so critical,” added Dr. Pavia, because the 21-day quarantine period is onerous for children and parents alike.

In a February 26 statement, Marcus Plescia, MD, MPH, chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, said “well-established public health practice recommends that unvaccinated persons exposed to measles stay home for at least 21 days to prevent further growth of the outbreak. While this is undoubtedly disruptive to the persons impacted, imagine how much more disruptive it would be if measles takes hold again in the United States, spreading widely, and impacting children and communities across the entire nation.”

During an outbreak, it’s still possible to give a measles vaccine to a child who has not yet received the shots, Dr. Pavia stressed. But time is of the essence: Vaccination should occur within 72 hours of the first known measles case in a school.

“It’s not perfect, they may still get measles, but it will greatly decrease the severity,” Dr. Pavia said.

If some children won’t get vaccinated during an outbreak, their parents may call a pediatrician or hospital staff for help as measles symptoms take hold. Clinicians should advise everyone in the home who is older than 2 years to begin wearing N95 masks and gloves, Dr. Alissa said. And when the child comes into the clinic he or she should be examined in a separate room, ideally one with negative air pressure and frequent filtration, Dr. Alissa added. If not, any private room will do if nobody else uses the room for at least 2 hours afterward.

“Measles is phenomenally transmissible,” Dr. Pavia said. A person with the virus can infect 12 to 18 others who are not protected against the pathogen. 

Someone with a severe reaction to measles could get an injection of intramuscular immunoglobulin, Dr. Pavia said, although this tends to be uncomfortable and expensive.

“The vaccine works. We almost got rid of measles,” Dr. Alissa said, although parents who choose to send their unvaccinated children to school can do so if they choose to.

“The fear of every pediatrician is to have a child die from this,” she said. “People who are sick, please stay at home.” 

Dr. Pavia reported an advisory relationship with Sanofi Pasteur regarding an RSV vaccine. Dr. Alissa reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid an ongoing measles outbreak in Florida possibly sparked by vaccine hesitancy, the state’s surgeon general Joseph Ladapo, MD, is contradicting public health guidance of encouraging quarantine of unvaccinated children. 

Rather than requesting that parents keep children unvaccinated against measles home from school or to get their children vaccinated, both critical tools in containing an outbreak, Dr. Ladapo has advised parents to do whatever they think is best. Pediatricians and infectious disease specialists fear a free-for-all will fuel the spread of the highly infectious virus, including in their own clinics. 

The outbreak has been traced to an elementary school in Weston and has so far sickened at least eight children, one of whom is younger than 5 years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, roughly 91% of the 230,000-odd kindergarteners in Florida had received the requisite doses of the MMR vaccine, which also protects against mumps and rubella, for the 2022-2023 school year, below the 95% vaccination level which public health authorities believes confers herd immunity against measles. An estimated 4.5% of kindergarteners in the state have received an exemption for the vaccine, which prevents measles in 97% of the people who get the shots, for a lifetime. The first dose is given around age 13 months and the second when people are age 4 or 5 years and soon to enter school.

“If you’re vaccinated you have a very slim chance of getting the virus,” said Rana Alissa, MD, a pediatrician at University of Florida Health in Jacksonville.

An unvaccinated child has no protection against measles, and could spread it to others merely by sneezing or touching a surface. In a school setting, infection could spread to a teacher who cannot receive the measles vaccine due to a weakened immune system, or the unvaccinated child could spread the virus at a pediatric clinic or hospital when seeking care for measles unless the clinic staff takes rigorous steps to separate the child from other children. Some children at the clinic won’t be able to get the measles vaccine either because of immunodeficiency or perhaps having had a bone marrow transplant. 

Assuming the unvaccinated child is healthy, the measles infection will run its course, and the child will then be immune to the disease, Dr. Alissa said. But meanwhile, the child could pose a significant risk to others. 

“We’re not worried about the unvaccinated kids who are very healthy. We’re worried about the adults who did not get vaccinated and who are very sick,” said Dr. Alissa, vice president of the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). “We’re worried about the little kids who are less than 13 months old. We’re worried about the kids with immunodeficiency disorders.” The Florida chapter of the AAP encourages parents to get their children vaccinated against measles amid the ongoing outbreak.

“I wish our surgeon general was on the same page as us,” Dr. Alissa added, noting that she thinks misplaced vaccine hesitancy has caused some parents to forego a safe and effective vaccine for their children.
 

Never Too Late to Vaxx

Measles symptoms appear 10-14 days after exposure and can include sore throat, cough, runny nose, inflamed eyes, fever, and blotchy skin rashes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 20% of people who are unvaccinated against measles will be hospitalized for the virus if they contract it.

Given the incubation period for the virus, clinicians and public health officials recommend unvaccinated children isolate for 21 days after being exposed to measles at school. The advice applies to any unvaccinated child, whether because their parent opted against the vaccine or because they cannot safely receive the immunization.

This is the guidance that Surgeon General Ladapo is flouting.

“We have a public health system. They’re awesome. They’re the experts. Let’s use them,” Dr. Alissa noted. “Their recommendation is to keep the unvaccinated kids at home for 21 days when you have an outbreak.” 

“We’re not calling him doctor anymore,” said Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. 

“Getting your kids immunized before they enter school is so critical,” added Dr. Pavia, because the 21-day quarantine period is onerous for children and parents alike.

In a February 26 statement, Marcus Plescia, MD, MPH, chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, said “well-established public health practice recommends that unvaccinated persons exposed to measles stay home for at least 21 days to prevent further growth of the outbreak. While this is undoubtedly disruptive to the persons impacted, imagine how much more disruptive it would be if measles takes hold again in the United States, spreading widely, and impacting children and communities across the entire nation.”

During an outbreak, it’s still possible to give a measles vaccine to a child who has not yet received the shots, Dr. Pavia stressed. But time is of the essence: Vaccination should occur within 72 hours of the first known measles case in a school.

“It’s not perfect, they may still get measles, but it will greatly decrease the severity,” Dr. Pavia said.

If some children won’t get vaccinated during an outbreak, their parents may call a pediatrician or hospital staff for help as measles symptoms take hold. Clinicians should advise everyone in the home who is older than 2 years to begin wearing N95 masks and gloves, Dr. Alissa said. And when the child comes into the clinic he or she should be examined in a separate room, ideally one with negative air pressure and frequent filtration, Dr. Alissa added. If not, any private room will do if nobody else uses the room for at least 2 hours afterward.

“Measles is phenomenally transmissible,” Dr. Pavia said. A person with the virus can infect 12 to 18 others who are not protected against the pathogen. 

Someone with a severe reaction to measles could get an injection of intramuscular immunoglobulin, Dr. Pavia said, although this tends to be uncomfortable and expensive.

“The vaccine works. We almost got rid of measles,” Dr. Alissa said, although parents who choose to send their unvaccinated children to school can do so if they choose to.

“The fear of every pediatrician is to have a child die from this,” she said. “People who are sick, please stay at home.” 

Dr. Pavia reported an advisory relationship with Sanofi Pasteur regarding an RSV vaccine. Dr. Alissa reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.