MDedge Pediatrics

A Pennsylvania urologist is suing his former employer for the alleged illegal enforcement of a noncompete agreement that limits his ability to practice locally for the next 2 years. 

The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice. 

According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania. 

Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure. 

Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN. 

Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation. 

After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said. 

Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said. 

Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs. 

For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1. 

“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. 

Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said. 

Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”

That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses. 

Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants. 

Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.” 

As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A Pennsylvania urologist is suing his former employer for the alleged illegal enforcement of a noncompete agreement that limits his ability to practice locally for the next 2 years. 

The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice. 

According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania. 

Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure. 

Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN. 

Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation. 

After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said. 

Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said. 

Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs. 

For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1. 

“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. 

Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said. 

Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”

That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses. 

Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants. 

Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.” 

As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A Pennsylvania urologist is suing his former employer for the alleged illegal enforcement of a noncompete agreement that limits his ability to practice locally for the next 2 years. 

The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice. 

According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania. 

Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure. 

Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN. 

Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation. 

After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said. 

Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said. 

Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs. 

For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1. 

“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. 

Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said. 

Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”

That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses. 

Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants. 

Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.” 

As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A Nepali medical graduate has filed a federal lawsuit against the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), which invalidated her test results earlier this year in response to a widespread cheating scandal. 

Latika Giri, MBBS, of Kathmandu, claims the board violated its own procedures by invalidating exam scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal, according to documents filed on February 12 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Dr. Giri alleges that the NBME’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors and run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. 

Dr. Giri is requesting that the court block NBME from invalidating her scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. The complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of Dr. Giri and other as yet unnamed plaintiffs affected by the board’s action. 

The lawsuit stems from a January 31 statement from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program that it was voiding scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal. 

The announcement came just before the report about the selling and buying of USMLE questions online, and concerns that cheating on the exam had become “rampant” in recent years. The article was cited in Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.

A spokesman for the NBME said the board does not comment on pending litigation. 

Kritika Tara Deb, a Washington, DC–based attorney representing Dr. Giri, declined to answer specific questions about the case but expressed confidence in the outcome of the suit. 

“A policy that explicitly denies employment to an entire nationality or ethnicity is counter to US law and the USMLE’s non-discrimination principles,” Deb told this news organization in an email. “Such a blatantly discriminatory policy severely punishes honest doctors while unfairly maligning an entire nationality, and we’re confident it will not stand.”
 

Doctor Says She Didn’t Cheat

Dr. Giri is one of 22,000 foreign medical school graduates who complete the USMLE each year, in addition to the 24,000 US medical school graduates who take the exam. 

A 2022 graduate of the Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dr. Giri completed her board exams in 2023. According to her lawsuit, she studied hard and did not cheat, passing Step 1 and scoring a 252 on Step 2 and a 229 on Step 3. Dr. Giri took Step 1 in Nepal, Step 2 in India, and Step 3 in Connecticut, according to court documents. In January 2024, Dr. Giri was preparing to enter the residency match pool and hoping to start her training in the summer when she received an email from NBME saying her USMLE scores had been invalidated. She was accused of “extremely improbable answer similarity with other examinees testing on the same form at similar times, unusually high performance, and abnormal question response times,” according to the complaint.

Dr. Giri and other examinees affected by the invalidations were given until February 16 to choose from three options. They could request that NBME reconsider its decision, which could take up to 10 weeks; agree to retake the test; or do nothing, in which case their scores would remain invalid and their access to USMLE would be suspended for 3 years. 

If examinees chose options 1 or 2, they would be required to waive their right to sue NBME, according to Dr. Giri’s lawsuit. 

“Because of the schedule of medical-residency matching, all three options result in graduates being unable to practice medicine for at least a year,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote in the complaint. “All three options force many people to abruptly leave the country within 30 days and cause every affected person to lose their jobs or the opportunity to seek a job.”
 

Lawsuit: Board Did Not Follow Published Practices

Dr. Giri contends that NBME’s handling of the suspected cheating violates its own published procedures and treats the subset of Nepali examinees differently from other medical graduates. Examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal, according to the suit. During the process, the test-taker’s score is treated as valid. 

Dr. Giri and others were not provided this same treatment and had their scores invalidated on “the explicit basis that they were associated with Nepal,” the suit claims. The actions are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against “any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to the complaint. 

About 800 people are in the subset of Nepali test-takers targeted by the NBME, according to the suit. 

Dr. Giri said the score invalidations will cause plaintiffs “irreparable harm” if the NBME’s actions are not promptly halted. 

“As of January 31, 2024, plaintiffs who are applying to medical residencies are all ineligible for the Match, the deadline for which is February 28, 2024,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote. “All plaintiffs will thus miss this year’s Match no matter what. And NBME has offered no explanation for why it waited until the day before the Match opened to abruptly suspended plaintiffs’ scores: Dr. Giri and many others took some of the invalidated exams more than a year ago.”

Dr. Giri is requesting a decision by the court by February 21. The NBME meanwhile, plans to issue a legal response by February 19, according to court documents. 

Meanwhile, a petition started on change.org by a US emergency physician born calls for the USMLE program to degeneralize the wording of its January 31 statement. The USMLE statement “casts a shadow over the achievement of a supermajority of physicians from Nepal who succeeded through perseverance, honesty, and intelligence,” according to the petition. Petitioners want the USMLE program to change and clarify that it does “not mean to malign physicians from the entire country of Nepal.” More than 2700 people have signed the petition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A Nepali medical graduate has filed a federal lawsuit against the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), which invalidated her test results earlier this year in response to a widespread cheating scandal. 

Latika Giri, MBBS, of Kathmandu, claims the board violated its own procedures by invalidating exam scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal, according to documents filed on February 12 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Dr. Giri alleges that the NBME’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors and run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. 

Dr. Giri is requesting that the court block NBME from invalidating her scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. The complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of Dr. Giri and other as yet unnamed plaintiffs affected by the board’s action. 

The lawsuit stems from a January 31 statement from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program that it was voiding scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal. 

The announcement came just before the report about the selling and buying of USMLE questions online, and concerns that cheating on the exam had become “rampant” in recent years. The article was cited in Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.

A spokesman for the NBME said the board does not comment on pending litigation. 

Kritika Tara Deb, a Washington, DC–based attorney representing Dr. Giri, declined to answer specific questions about the case but expressed confidence in the outcome of the suit. 

“A policy that explicitly denies employment to an entire nationality or ethnicity is counter to US law and the USMLE’s non-discrimination principles,” Deb told this news organization in an email. “Such a blatantly discriminatory policy severely punishes honest doctors while unfairly maligning an entire nationality, and we’re confident it will not stand.”
 

Doctor Says She Didn’t Cheat

Dr. Giri is one of 22,000 foreign medical school graduates who complete the USMLE each year, in addition to the 24,000 US medical school graduates who take the exam. 

A 2022 graduate of the Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dr. Giri completed her board exams in 2023. According to her lawsuit, she studied hard and did not cheat, passing Step 1 and scoring a 252 on Step 2 and a 229 on Step 3. Dr. Giri took Step 1 in Nepal, Step 2 in India, and Step 3 in Connecticut, according to court documents. In January 2024, Dr. Giri was preparing to enter the residency match pool and hoping to start her training in the summer when she received an email from NBME saying her USMLE scores had been invalidated. She was accused of “extremely improbable answer similarity with other examinees testing on the same form at similar times, unusually high performance, and abnormal question response times,” according to the complaint.

Dr. Giri and other examinees affected by the invalidations were given until February 16 to choose from three options. They could request that NBME reconsider its decision, which could take up to 10 weeks; agree to retake the test; or do nothing, in which case their scores would remain invalid and their access to USMLE would be suspended for 3 years. 

If examinees chose options 1 or 2, they would be required to waive their right to sue NBME, according to Dr. Giri’s lawsuit. 

“Because of the schedule of medical-residency matching, all three options result in graduates being unable to practice medicine for at least a year,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote in the complaint. “All three options force many people to abruptly leave the country within 30 days and cause every affected person to lose their jobs or the opportunity to seek a job.”
 

Lawsuit: Board Did Not Follow Published Practices

Dr. Giri contends that NBME’s handling of the suspected cheating violates its own published procedures and treats the subset of Nepali examinees differently from other medical graduates. Examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal, according to the suit. During the process, the test-taker’s score is treated as valid. 

Dr. Giri and others were not provided this same treatment and had their scores invalidated on “the explicit basis that they were associated with Nepal,” the suit claims. The actions are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against “any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to the complaint. 

About 800 people are in the subset of Nepali test-takers targeted by the NBME, according to the suit. 

Dr. Giri said the score invalidations will cause plaintiffs “irreparable harm” if the NBME’s actions are not promptly halted. 

“As of January 31, 2024, plaintiffs who are applying to medical residencies are all ineligible for the Match, the deadline for which is February 28, 2024,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote. “All plaintiffs will thus miss this year’s Match no matter what. And NBME has offered no explanation for why it waited until the day before the Match opened to abruptly suspended plaintiffs’ scores: Dr. Giri and many others took some of the invalidated exams more than a year ago.”

Dr. Giri is requesting a decision by the court by February 21. The NBME meanwhile, plans to issue a legal response by February 19, according to court documents. 

Meanwhile, a petition started on change.org by a US emergency physician born calls for the USMLE program to degeneralize the wording of its January 31 statement. The USMLE statement “casts a shadow over the achievement of a supermajority of physicians from Nepal who succeeded through perseverance, honesty, and intelligence,” according to the petition. Petitioners want the USMLE program to change and clarify that it does “not mean to malign physicians from the entire country of Nepal.” More than 2700 people have signed the petition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A Nepali medical graduate has filed a federal lawsuit against the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), which invalidated her test results earlier this year in response to a widespread cheating scandal. 

Latika Giri, MBBS, of Kathmandu, claims the board violated its own procedures by invalidating exam scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal, according to documents filed on February 12 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Dr. Giri alleges that the NBME’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors and run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. 

Dr. Giri is requesting that the court block NBME from invalidating her scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. The complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of Dr. Giri and other as yet unnamed plaintiffs affected by the board’s action. 

The lawsuit stems from a January 31 statement from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program that it was voiding scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal. 

The announcement came just before the report about the selling and buying of USMLE questions online, and concerns that cheating on the exam had become “rampant” in recent years. The article was cited in Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.

A spokesman for the NBME said the board does not comment on pending litigation. 

Kritika Tara Deb, a Washington, DC–based attorney representing Dr. Giri, declined to answer specific questions about the case but expressed confidence in the outcome of the suit. 

“A policy that explicitly denies employment to an entire nationality or ethnicity is counter to US law and the USMLE’s non-discrimination principles,” Deb told this news organization in an email. “Such a blatantly discriminatory policy severely punishes honest doctors while unfairly maligning an entire nationality, and we’re confident it will not stand.”
 

Doctor Says She Didn’t Cheat

Dr. Giri is one of 22,000 foreign medical school graduates who complete the USMLE each year, in addition to the 24,000 US medical school graduates who take the exam. 

A 2022 graduate of the Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dr. Giri completed her board exams in 2023. According to her lawsuit, she studied hard and did not cheat, passing Step 1 and scoring a 252 on Step 2 and a 229 on Step 3. Dr. Giri took Step 1 in Nepal, Step 2 in India, and Step 3 in Connecticut, according to court documents. In January 2024, Dr. Giri was preparing to enter the residency match pool and hoping to start her training in the summer when she received an email from NBME saying her USMLE scores had been invalidated. She was accused of “extremely improbable answer similarity with other examinees testing on the same form at similar times, unusually high performance, and abnormal question response times,” according to the complaint.

Dr. Giri and other examinees affected by the invalidations were given until February 16 to choose from three options. They could request that NBME reconsider its decision, which could take up to 10 weeks; agree to retake the test; or do nothing, in which case their scores would remain invalid and their access to USMLE would be suspended for 3 years. 

If examinees chose options 1 or 2, they would be required to waive their right to sue NBME, according to Dr. Giri’s lawsuit. 

“Because of the schedule of medical-residency matching, all three options result in graduates being unable to practice medicine for at least a year,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote in the complaint. “All three options force many people to abruptly leave the country within 30 days and cause every affected person to lose their jobs or the opportunity to seek a job.”
 

Lawsuit: Board Did Not Follow Published Practices

Dr. Giri contends that NBME’s handling of the suspected cheating violates its own published procedures and treats the subset of Nepali examinees differently from other medical graduates. Examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal, according to the suit. During the process, the test-taker’s score is treated as valid. 

Dr. Giri and others were not provided this same treatment and had their scores invalidated on “the explicit basis that they were associated with Nepal,” the suit claims. The actions are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against “any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to the complaint. 

About 800 people are in the subset of Nepali test-takers targeted by the NBME, according to the suit. 

Dr. Giri said the score invalidations will cause plaintiffs “irreparable harm” if the NBME’s actions are not promptly halted. 

“As of January 31, 2024, plaintiffs who are applying to medical residencies are all ineligible for the Match, the deadline for which is February 28, 2024,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote. “All plaintiffs will thus miss this year’s Match no matter what. And NBME has offered no explanation for why it waited until the day before the Match opened to abruptly suspended plaintiffs’ scores: Dr. Giri and many others took some of the invalidated exams more than a year ago.”

Dr. Giri is requesting a decision by the court by February 21. The NBME meanwhile, plans to issue a legal response by February 19, according to court documents. 

Meanwhile, a petition started on change.org by a US emergency physician born calls for the USMLE program to degeneralize the wording of its January 31 statement. The USMLE statement “casts a shadow over the achievement of a supermajority of physicians from Nepal who succeeded through perseverance, honesty, and intelligence,” according to the petition. Petitioners want the USMLE program to change and clarify that it does “not mean to malign physicians from the entire country of Nepal.” More than 2700 people have signed the petition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are mainly cared for in primary care settings by us. Management of this chronic neurodevelopmental condition that affects 5+% of children worldwide should include proper diagnosis, assessment for contributing and comorbid conditions, behavioral intervention (the primary treatment for preschoolers), ensuring good sleep and nutrition, and usually medication.

Because stimulants are very effective for reducing ADHD symptoms, we may readily begin these first-line medications even on the initial visit when the diagnosis is determined. But are we really thoughtful about knowing and explaining the potential short- and long-term side effects of these medications that may then be used for many years? Considerable discussion with the child and parents may be needed to address their concerns, balanced with benefits, and to make a plan for their access and use of stimulants (and other medications for ADHD not the topic here).

Consider the Side Effects

In children older than 6 years, some form of either a methylphenidate (MPH) or a dextroamphetamine (DA) class of stimulant have been shown to be equally effective in reducing symptoms of ADHD in about 77% of cases, but side effects are common, mostly mild, and mostly in the first months of use. These include reduced appetite, abdominal pain, headache, weight loss, tics, jitteriness, and delays in falling asleep. About half of all children treated will have one of these adverse effects over 5 years, with reduced appetite the most common. There is no difference in effectiveness or side effects by presentation type, i.e. hyperactive, inattentive, or combined, but the DA forms are associated with more side effects than MPH (10% vs. 6%). Medicated preschoolers have more and different side effects which, in addition to those above, may include listlessness, social withdrawal, and repetitive movements. Fortunately, we can reassure families that side effects can usually be readily managed by slower ramp up of dose, spacing to ensure appetite for meals, extra snacks, attention to bowel patterns and bedtime routines, or change in medication class.

Rates of tics while on stimulants are low irrespective of whether DA or MPH is used, and are usually transient, but difficult cases may occur, sometimes as part of Tourette’s, although not a contraindication. Additional side effects of concern are anxiety, irritability, sadness, and overfocusing that may require a change in class of stimulant or to a nonstimulant. Keep in mind that these symptoms may represent comorbid conditions to ADHD, warranting counseling intervention rather than being a medication side effect. Both initial assessment for ADHD and monitoring should look for comorbidities whether medication is used or not.

Measuring height, weight, pulse, and blood pressure should be part of ADHD care. How concerned should you and the family be about variations? Growth rate declines are more common in preschool children; in the PATS study height varied by 20.3%, and weight by 55.2%, more in heavier children. Growth can be protected by providing favored food for school, encouraging eating when hungry, and an evening fourth meal. You can reassure families that, even with continual use of stimulant medicines for years and initial deficits of 2 cm and 2.7 kg compared to expected, no significant differences remain in adulthood.

This longitudinal growth data was collected when short-acting stimulants were the usual, rather than the now common long-acting stimulants given 7 days per week, however. Children on transdermal MPH with 12-hour release over 3 years showed a small but significant delay in growth with the mean deficit rates 1.3 kg/year mainly in the first year, and 0.68 cm/year in height in the second year. If we see growth not recovering as it is expected to after the first year of treatment, we can advise shorter-acting forms, and medication “holidays” on weekends or vacations, that reduce but do not end the deficits. When concerned, a nonstimulant can be selected.

Blood pressure and pulse rate are predictably slightly increased on stimulants (about 2-4 mm Hg and about 3-6 bpm) but not clinically significantly. Although ECGs are not routinely recommended, careful consideration and consultation is warranted before starting stimulants for any patient with structural cardiac abnormalities, unexplained syncope, exertional chest pain, or a family history of sudden death in children or young adults. Neither current nor former users of stimulants for ADHD were found to have greater rates of cardiac events than the general population, however.
 

Misuse and abuse

Misuse and diversion of stimulants is common (e.g. 26% diverted MPH in the past month; 14% of 12th graders divert DA), often undetected, and potentially dangerous. And the problem is not limited to just the kids. Sixteen percent of parents reported diversion of stimulant medication to another household member, mainly to themselves. Stimulant overdose can occur, especially taken parenterally, and presents with dilated pupils, tremor, agitation, hyperreflexia, combative behavior, confusion, hallucinations, delirium, anxiety, paranoia, movement disorders, and/or seizures. Fortunately, overdose of prescribed stimulants is rarely fatal if medically managed, but recent “fake” Adderall (not from pharmacies) has been circulating. These fake drugs may contain lethal amounts of fentanyl or methamphetamine. Point out to families that a peer-provided stimulant not prescribed for them may have underlying medical or psychiatric issues that increase adverse events. Selling stimulants can have serious legal implications, with punishments ranging from fines to incarceration. A record of arrest during adolescence increases the likelihood of high school dropout, lack of 4-year college education, and later employment barriers. Besides these serious outcomes, it is useful to remind patients that if they deviate from your recommended dosing that you, and others, will not prescribe for them in the future the medication that has been supporting their successful functioning.

You can be fooled about being able to tell if your patients are misusing or diverting the stimulants you prescribe. Most (59%) physicians suspect that more than one of their patients with ADHD has diverted or feigned symptoms (66%) to get a prescription. Women were less likely to suspect their patients than are men, though, so be vigilant! Child psychiatrists had the highest suspicion with their greater proportion of patients with ADHD plus conduct or substance use disorder, who account for 83% of misusers/diverters. We can use education about misuse, pill counts, contracts on dosing, or switching to long-acting or nonstimulants to curb this.
 

Additional concerns

With more ADHD diagnosis and stimulants used for many years should we worry about longer-term issues? There have been reports in rodent models and a few children of chromosomal changes with stimulant exposure, but reviewers do not interpret these as an individual cancer risk. Record review of patients who received stimulants showed lower numbers of cancer than expected. Nor is there evidence of reproductive effects of stimulants, although use during pregnancy is not cleared.

Stimulants carry a boxed warning as having high potential for abuse and psychological or physical dependence, which is unsurprising given their effects on brain reward pathways. However, neither past nor present use of stimulants for ADHD has been associated with greater substance use long term.

To top off these issues, recent shortages of stimulants complicate ADHD management. Most states require electronic prescribing, US rules only allowing one transfer of such e-prescriptions. With many pharmacies refusing to tell families about availability, we must make multiple calls to locate a source. Pharmacists could help us by looking up patient names of abusers on the registry and identifying sites with adequate supplies.

While we need to educate ourselves and our patients about potential and manifest side effects and risks of stimulants, we need to balance those concerns with their high effectiveness for improving daily functioning of our many patients with ADHD.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are mainly cared for in primary care settings by us. Management of this chronic neurodevelopmental condition that affects 5+% of children worldwide should include proper diagnosis, assessment for contributing and comorbid conditions, behavioral intervention (the primary treatment for preschoolers), ensuring good sleep and nutrition, and usually medication.

Because stimulants are very effective for reducing ADHD symptoms, we may readily begin these first-line medications even on the initial visit when the diagnosis is determined. But are we really thoughtful about knowing and explaining the potential short- and long-term side effects of these medications that may then be used for many years? Considerable discussion with the child and parents may be needed to address their concerns, balanced with benefits, and to make a plan for their access and use of stimulants (and other medications for ADHD not the topic here).

Consider the Side Effects

In children older than 6 years, some form of either a methylphenidate (MPH) or a dextroamphetamine (DA) class of stimulant have been shown to be equally effective in reducing symptoms of ADHD in about 77% of cases, but side effects are common, mostly mild, and mostly in the first months of use. These include reduced appetite, abdominal pain, headache, weight loss, tics, jitteriness, and delays in falling asleep. About half of all children treated will have one of these adverse effects over 5 years, with reduced appetite the most common. There is no difference in effectiveness or side effects by presentation type, i.e. hyperactive, inattentive, or combined, but the DA forms are associated with more side effects than MPH (10% vs. 6%). Medicated preschoolers have more and different side effects which, in addition to those above, may include listlessness, social withdrawal, and repetitive movements. Fortunately, we can reassure families that side effects can usually be readily managed by slower ramp up of dose, spacing to ensure appetite for meals, extra snacks, attention to bowel patterns and bedtime routines, or change in medication class.

Rates of tics while on stimulants are low irrespective of whether DA or MPH is used, and are usually transient, but difficult cases may occur, sometimes as part of Tourette’s, although not a contraindication. Additional side effects of concern are anxiety, irritability, sadness, and overfocusing that may require a change in class of stimulant or to a nonstimulant. Keep in mind that these symptoms may represent comorbid conditions to ADHD, warranting counseling intervention rather than being a medication side effect. Both initial assessment for ADHD and monitoring should look for comorbidities whether medication is used or not.

Measuring height, weight, pulse, and blood pressure should be part of ADHD care. How concerned should you and the family be about variations? Growth rate declines are more common in preschool children; in the PATS study height varied by 20.3%, and weight by 55.2%, more in heavier children. Growth can be protected by providing favored food for school, encouraging eating when hungry, and an evening fourth meal. You can reassure families that, even with continual use of stimulant medicines for years and initial deficits of 2 cm and 2.7 kg compared to expected, no significant differences remain in adulthood.

This longitudinal growth data was collected when short-acting stimulants were the usual, rather than the now common long-acting stimulants given 7 days per week, however. Children on transdermal MPH with 12-hour release over 3 years showed a small but significant delay in growth with the mean deficit rates 1.3 kg/year mainly in the first year, and 0.68 cm/year in height in the second year. If we see growth not recovering as it is expected to after the first year of treatment, we can advise shorter-acting forms, and medication “holidays” on weekends or vacations, that reduce but do not end the deficits. When concerned, a nonstimulant can be selected.

Blood pressure and pulse rate are predictably slightly increased on stimulants (about 2-4 mm Hg and about 3-6 bpm) but not clinically significantly. Although ECGs are not routinely recommended, careful consideration and consultation is warranted before starting stimulants for any patient with structural cardiac abnormalities, unexplained syncope, exertional chest pain, or a family history of sudden death in children or young adults. Neither current nor former users of stimulants for ADHD were found to have greater rates of cardiac events than the general population, however.
 

Misuse and abuse

Misuse and diversion of stimulants is common (e.g. 26% diverted MPH in the past month; 14% of 12th graders divert DA), often undetected, and potentially dangerous. And the problem is not limited to just the kids. Sixteen percent of parents reported diversion of stimulant medication to another household member, mainly to themselves. Stimulant overdose can occur, especially taken parenterally, and presents with dilated pupils, tremor, agitation, hyperreflexia, combative behavior, confusion, hallucinations, delirium, anxiety, paranoia, movement disorders, and/or seizures. Fortunately, overdose of prescribed stimulants is rarely fatal if medically managed, but recent “fake” Adderall (not from pharmacies) has been circulating. These fake drugs may contain lethal amounts of fentanyl or methamphetamine. Point out to families that a peer-provided stimulant not prescribed for them may have underlying medical or psychiatric issues that increase adverse events. Selling stimulants can have serious legal implications, with punishments ranging from fines to incarceration. A record of arrest during adolescence increases the likelihood of high school dropout, lack of 4-year college education, and later employment barriers. Besides these serious outcomes, it is useful to remind patients that if they deviate from your recommended dosing that you, and others, will not prescribe for them in the future the medication that has been supporting their successful functioning.

You can be fooled about being able to tell if your patients are misusing or diverting the stimulants you prescribe. Most (59%) physicians suspect that more than one of their patients with ADHD has diverted or feigned symptoms (66%) to get a prescription. Women were less likely to suspect their patients than are men, though, so be vigilant! Child psychiatrists had the highest suspicion with their greater proportion of patients with ADHD plus conduct or substance use disorder, who account for 83% of misusers/diverters. We can use education about misuse, pill counts, contracts on dosing, or switching to long-acting or nonstimulants to curb this.
 

Additional concerns

With more ADHD diagnosis and stimulants used for many years should we worry about longer-term issues? There have been reports in rodent models and a few children of chromosomal changes with stimulant exposure, but reviewers do not interpret these as an individual cancer risk. Record review of patients who received stimulants showed lower numbers of cancer than expected. Nor is there evidence of reproductive effects of stimulants, although use during pregnancy is not cleared.

Stimulants carry a boxed warning as having high potential for abuse and psychological or physical dependence, which is unsurprising given their effects on brain reward pathways. However, neither past nor present use of stimulants for ADHD has been associated with greater substance use long term.

To top off these issues, recent shortages of stimulants complicate ADHD management. Most states require electronic prescribing, US rules only allowing one transfer of such e-prescriptions. With many pharmacies refusing to tell families about availability, we must make multiple calls to locate a source. Pharmacists could help us by looking up patient names of abusers on the registry and identifying sites with adequate supplies.

While we need to educate ourselves and our patients about potential and manifest side effects and risks of stimulants, we need to balance those concerns with their high effectiveness for improving daily functioning of our many patients with ADHD.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are mainly cared for in primary care settings by us. Management of this chronic neurodevelopmental condition that affects 5+% of children worldwide should include proper diagnosis, assessment for contributing and comorbid conditions, behavioral intervention (the primary treatment for preschoolers), ensuring good sleep and nutrition, and usually medication.

Because stimulants are very effective for reducing ADHD symptoms, we may readily begin these first-line medications even on the initial visit when the diagnosis is determined. But are we really thoughtful about knowing and explaining the potential short- and long-term side effects of these medications that may then be used for many years? Considerable discussion with the child and parents may be needed to address their concerns, balanced with benefits, and to make a plan for their access and use of stimulants (and other medications for ADHD not the topic here).

Consider the Side Effects

In children older than 6 years, some form of either a methylphenidate (MPH) or a dextroamphetamine (DA) class of stimulant have been shown to be equally effective in reducing symptoms of ADHD in about 77% of cases, but side effects are common, mostly mild, and mostly in the first months of use. These include reduced appetite, abdominal pain, headache, weight loss, tics, jitteriness, and delays in falling asleep. About half of all children treated will have one of these adverse effects over 5 years, with reduced appetite the most common. There is no difference in effectiveness or side effects by presentation type, i.e. hyperactive, inattentive, or combined, but the DA forms are associated with more side effects than MPH (10% vs. 6%). Medicated preschoolers have more and different side effects which, in addition to those above, may include listlessness, social withdrawal, and repetitive movements. Fortunately, we can reassure families that side effects can usually be readily managed by slower ramp up of dose, spacing to ensure appetite for meals, extra snacks, attention to bowel patterns and bedtime routines, or change in medication class.

Rates of tics while on stimulants are low irrespective of whether DA or MPH is used, and are usually transient, but difficult cases may occur, sometimes as part of Tourette’s, although not a contraindication. Additional side effects of concern are anxiety, irritability, sadness, and overfocusing that may require a change in class of stimulant or to a nonstimulant. Keep in mind that these symptoms may represent comorbid conditions to ADHD, warranting counseling intervention rather than being a medication side effect. Both initial assessment for ADHD and monitoring should look for comorbidities whether medication is used or not.

Measuring height, weight, pulse, and blood pressure should be part of ADHD care. How concerned should you and the family be about variations? Growth rate declines are more common in preschool children; in the PATS study height varied by 20.3%, and weight by 55.2%, more in heavier children. Growth can be protected by providing favored food for school, encouraging eating when hungry, and an evening fourth meal. You can reassure families that, even with continual use of stimulant medicines for years and initial deficits of 2 cm and 2.7 kg compared to expected, no significant differences remain in adulthood.

This longitudinal growth data was collected when short-acting stimulants were the usual, rather than the now common long-acting stimulants given 7 days per week, however. Children on transdermal MPH with 12-hour release over 3 years showed a small but significant delay in growth with the mean deficit rates 1.3 kg/year mainly in the first year, and 0.68 cm/year in height in the second year. If we see growth not recovering as it is expected to after the first year of treatment, we can advise shorter-acting forms, and medication “holidays” on weekends or vacations, that reduce but do not end the deficits. When concerned, a nonstimulant can be selected.

Blood pressure and pulse rate are predictably slightly increased on stimulants (about 2-4 mm Hg and about 3-6 bpm) but not clinically significantly. Although ECGs are not routinely recommended, careful consideration and consultation is warranted before starting stimulants for any patient with structural cardiac abnormalities, unexplained syncope, exertional chest pain, or a family history of sudden death in children or young adults. Neither current nor former users of stimulants for ADHD were found to have greater rates of cardiac events than the general population, however.
 

Misuse and abuse

Misuse and diversion of stimulants is common (e.g. 26% diverted MPH in the past month; 14% of 12th graders divert DA), often undetected, and potentially dangerous. And the problem is not limited to just the kids. Sixteen percent of parents reported diversion of stimulant medication to another household member, mainly to themselves. Stimulant overdose can occur, especially taken parenterally, and presents with dilated pupils, tremor, agitation, hyperreflexia, combative behavior, confusion, hallucinations, delirium, anxiety, paranoia, movement disorders, and/or seizures. Fortunately, overdose of prescribed stimulants is rarely fatal if medically managed, but recent “fake” Adderall (not from pharmacies) has been circulating. These fake drugs may contain lethal amounts of fentanyl or methamphetamine. Point out to families that a peer-provided stimulant not prescribed for them may have underlying medical or psychiatric issues that increase adverse events. Selling stimulants can have serious legal implications, with punishments ranging from fines to incarceration. A record of arrest during adolescence increases the likelihood of high school dropout, lack of 4-year college education, and later employment barriers. Besides these serious outcomes, it is useful to remind patients that if they deviate from your recommended dosing that you, and others, will not prescribe for them in the future the medication that has been supporting their successful functioning.

You can be fooled about being able to tell if your patients are misusing or diverting the stimulants you prescribe. Most (59%) physicians suspect that more than one of their patients with ADHD has diverted or feigned symptoms (66%) to get a prescription. Women were less likely to suspect their patients than are men, though, so be vigilant! Child psychiatrists had the highest suspicion with their greater proportion of patients with ADHD plus conduct or substance use disorder, who account for 83% of misusers/diverters. We can use education about misuse, pill counts, contracts on dosing, or switching to long-acting or nonstimulants to curb this.
 

Additional concerns

With more ADHD diagnosis and stimulants used for many years should we worry about longer-term issues? There have been reports in rodent models and a few children of chromosomal changes with stimulant exposure, but reviewers do not interpret these as an individual cancer risk. Record review of patients who received stimulants showed lower numbers of cancer than expected. Nor is there evidence of reproductive effects of stimulants, although use during pregnancy is not cleared.

Stimulants carry a boxed warning as having high potential for abuse and psychological or physical dependence, which is unsurprising given their effects on brain reward pathways. However, neither past nor present use of stimulants for ADHD has been associated with greater substance use long term.

To top off these issues, recent shortages of stimulants complicate ADHD management. Most states require electronic prescribing, US rules only allowing one transfer of such e-prescriptions. With many pharmacies refusing to tell families about availability, we must make multiple calls to locate a source. Pharmacists could help us by looking up patient names of abusers on the registry and identifying sites with adequate supplies.

While we need to educate ourselves and our patients about potential and manifest side effects and risks of stimulants, we need to balance those concerns with their high effectiveness for improving daily functioning of our many patients with ADHD.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

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

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

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

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly discuss a critically important topic that cannot be overly emphasized. It is the relevance, the importance, the benefits, and the outcome of HPV vaccination.

The paper I’m referring to was published in Pediatrics in October 2023. It’s titled, “Ten-Year Follow-up of 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Immunogenicity, Effectiveness, and Safety.”

Let me emphasize that we’re talking about a 10-year follow-up. In this particular paper and analysis, 301 boys — I emphasize boys — were included and 971 girls at 40 different sites in 13 countries, who received the 9-valent vaccine, which includes HPV 16, 18, and seven other types.

These investigators demonstrated that the seropositivity rate 10 years after vaccination remained high for all nine types they looked at. Most importantly, there was not a single case. Not one. Let me repeat this: There was not a single case of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, or worse, or condyloma in either males or females. There was not a single case in over 1000 individuals with a follow-up of more than 10 years.

It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of the benefit associated with HPV vaccination for our children and young adults on their risk of developing highly relevant, life-changing, potentially deadly cancers.

For those of you who are interested in this topic — which should include almost all of you, if not all of you — I encourage you to read this very important follow-up paper, again, demonstrating the simple, overwhelming magnitude of the benefit of HPV vaccination. I thank you for your attention.
 

Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of medicine and science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly discuss a critically important topic that cannot be overly emphasized. It is the relevance, the importance, the benefits, and the outcome of HPV vaccination.

The paper I’m referring to was published in Pediatrics in October 2023. It’s titled, “Ten-Year Follow-up of 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Immunogenicity, Effectiveness, and Safety.”

Let me emphasize that we’re talking about a 10-year follow-up. In this particular paper and analysis, 301 boys — I emphasize boys — were included and 971 girls at 40 different sites in 13 countries, who received the 9-valent vaccine, which includes HPV 16, 18, and seven other types.

These investigators demonstrated that the seropositivity rate 10 years after vaccination remained high for all nine types they looked at. Most importantly, there was not a single case. Not one. Let me repeat this: There was not a single case of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, or worse, or condyloma in either males or females. There was not a single case in over 1000 individuals with a follow-up of more than 10 years.

It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of the benefit associated with HPV vaccination for our children and young adults on their risk of developing highly relevant, life-changing, potentially deadly cancers.

For those of you who are interested in this topic — which should include almost all of you, if not all of you — I encourage you to read this very important follow-up paper, again, demonstrating the simple, overwhelming magnitude of the benefit of HPV vaccination. I thank you for your attention.
 

Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of medicine and science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly discuss a critically important topic that cannot be overly emphasized. It is the relevance, the importance, the benefits, and the outcome of HPV vaccination.

The paper I’m referring to was published in Pediatrics in October 2023. It’s titled, “Ten-Year Follow-up of 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Immunogenicity, Effectiveness, and Safety.”

Let me emphasize that we’re talking about a 10-year follow-up. In this particular paper and analysis, 301 boys — I emphasize boys — were included and 971 girls at 40 different sites in 13 countries, who received the 9-valent vaccine, which includes HPV 16, 18, and seven other types.

These investigators demonstrated that the seropositivity rate 10 years after vaccination remained high for all nine types they looked at. Most importantly, there was not a single case. Not one. Let me repeat this: There was not a single case of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, or worse, or condyloma in either males or females. There was not a single case in over 1000 individuals with a follow-up of more than 10 years.

It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of the benefit associated with HPV vaccination for our children and young adults on their risk of developing highly relevant, life-changing, potentially deadly cancers.

For those of you who are interested in this topic — which should include almost all of you, if not all of you — I encourage you to read this very important follow-up paper, again, demonstrating the simple, overwhelming magnitude of the benefit of HPV vaccination. I thank you for your attention.
 

Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of medicine and science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 1.1% of US adults have epilepsy. Although 89% report seeing a physician in the past year about their condition, only 62% of adults saw a neurologist or seizure specialist. 

These findings prompted Rosemary Kobau, MPH, the acting team lead for the CDC’s epilepsy program, to take a closer look at referral patterns by primary care providers in the United States. Using data from a 2018 online survey of US internists, pediatricians, family medicine physicians, and nurse practitioners, she found that 90% of providers would refer a patient with new-onset seizure to a neurologist.

She also noticed what she calls a “big red flag”: “We found that 40% of primary care providers did not indicate that they would refer their patient with epilepsy to a neurologist when their patient fails to respond to treatment, or if they have a change in seizure activity,” Dr. Kobau told this news organization. Individuals with uncontrolled seizures are at risk for multiple adverse health outcomes, along with emotional problems, social stigma, and decreased life expectancy. 

Factors that influenced primary care clinicians to refer to a neurologist included prompt availability of appointments, ability to talk to the neurologist, and whether a patient’s insurance covered specialty visits. Proximity of a specialist also was cited as a barrier, because neurologists can be hard to find outside of urban centers.

Wait lists for neurologist are not like to get shorter any time soon, according to a 2019 report from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). A 2013 workforce report from the AAN found 35 US states, representing 62% of the US population, had fewer neurologists than needed to meet demand. By 2025, demand is projected to exceed supply in 41 states. 

Much of the increasing demand for adult neurologists is driven by aging of the population, resulting in higher rates of stroke, Parkinson’s disease, and dementia. But pediatric neurologists are also overwhelmed: Pediatric neurology is one of the top three pediatric subspecialties with the longest wait times. The shortage is exacerbated by difficulties in transitioning adolescents with epilepsy — many diagnosed early in life with neurodevelopmental and epileptic encephalopathy and problem lists that include learning disorders, behavioral issues, and other chronic medical problems — to adult epilepsy specialists. 

Although one of the solutions offered by the AAN is more training in epilepsy management for non-neurologists (such as CME programs developed by the American Epilepsy Society), many primary care providers are overwhelmed already. Still, primary care providers are well-positioned to help answer some of the most important questions about the management of patients with seizure disorders. 
 

How to Help

“There’s a lot the pediatrician can do when a child presents with seizures,” said Sucheta Joshi, MD, who serves as the medical director of the Neurological Institute Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

Step one is helping to allay the fears of family members who witness a seizure. “They can talk about seizure safety, they can talk about first aid when a seizure happens, they can talk about what to do, what not to do,” she advised. Clinicians who see children can find resources for families on the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) National Coordinating Center for Epilepsy website, including a 24/7 helpline, information about local chapters of the Epilepsy Foundation, and first aid training for seizures. 

Fred Lado, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Norwell in Hempstead, New York, said that primary care clinicians have several decision points when it comes to their patients with epilepsy.

The first is whether to initiate medication after the first episode of seizure. Studies show that the risk for a second seizure decreases in patients started on anticonvulsant therapy after a first event, but many clinicians don›t want to commit patients to long-term therapy without more evidence that the patient has epilepsy. Studies have shown that delaying therapy until a second seizure occurs doesn›t negatively affect quality of life and long-term prognosis. 

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) advised treatment for patients with two or more unprovoked seizures but revised its recommendation in 2014 to begin treatment after a first seizure for individuals at high risk for a second seizure. History of a brain insult related to a stroke, mass lesion in the brain, or trauma are risk factors for a second seizure, whereas seizures provoked by a concussion, alcohol withdrawal, or exposure to toxins carry low risk for additional episodes.

Dr. Lado also raised the importance of taking a good history from a patient presenting for medical care for a new-onset seizure to determine whether the recent episode is really the first such incident.

Up to half of patients presenting to emergency departments for convulsive seizures have a history of a preceding nonmotor seizure that the patient or their family members have failed to identify. As many as 60% of people with epilepsy have focal seizures, but the majority of these are nonmotor seizures. As a result, these patients often go without a diagnosis until they develop bilateral tonic-clonic seizures — by which time they may already been injured during a seizure or had an accident while driving.

In terms of imaging and other workup that should be performed prior to the first appointment with a pediatric neurologist or epilepsy specialist, Dr. Joshi generally recommends EEG. She also prefers MRI over CT, which is better for finding lesions that tend to cause seizures in kids such as developmental abnormalities like a cortical malformation or a perinatal process. Obtaining an MRI prior to seeing the neurologist is elective, depending on whether the history and clinical presentation suggest a focal lesion.

For adults, Dr. Lado also recommends an EEG and MRI to start but rarely advises other laboratory studies. When patients present to the emergency department with a new-onset seizure, the workup commonly includes a chemistry panel to rule out hypoglycemia or electrolyte abnormalities. But in the outpatient setting, where a patient describes symptoms of a seizure that occurred a week ago or longer, Dr. Lado said the yield of such assessments is low. 

“I think the labs are often more useful as you’re thinking about an anticonvulsant,” Dr. Lado said. Particularly for a patient who is facing a long wait to see specialist, obtaining baseline liver enzymes and a complete blood cell count is worthwhile, because many antiseizure medications can cause anemia or liver damage.

Dr. Lado agreed that referral to a specialist is critical for patients with drug-resistant seizures, defined by the ILAE as seizures that persist despite the use of two or more anticonvulsants. 

“One of the great problems in epilepsy care is a sort of sense of complacency,” he said. Some of his own patients have become comfortable with their epilepsy diagnosis and profess to be untroubled by having a few seizures per year. In 2018, Dr. Kobau was a co-author on a study reporting that less than half of US adults taking seizure medications were seizure-free in the past year. 

This scenario is an opportunity for primary care providers to help determine whether their patients are taking their antiseizure medication correctly. A referral to a specialist might not be necessary if the seizures are occurring because the patient’s prescription ran out. Similarly, if a patient doesn’t take the medication because of unpleasant side effects, raising the dose won’t help. 

Dr. Lado’s advice is to explore why the patient’s management plan is not working and make adjustments tailored to their needs. The solution might be as simple as changing the patient to an extended-release formulation to lower the number of daily doses needed, he said.

But for patients who do have recurrent seizures despite good adherence, Dr. Lado strongly urges a referral to an epilepsy specialist. He serves as president of the National Association of Epilepsy Centers (NAEC), a network of more than 260 epilepsy centers in the United States that offer the services of epileptologists, neurosurgeons, neuropsychologists, nurse specialists, EEG technologists, social workers, and others with training and experience in epilepsy care. In addition to adjusting and monitoring medications, patients seen at an NAEC can be evaluated for surgery, neurostimulators, and ketogenic diets.
 

Improving Self-Management

Another role that primary care can play is promoting self-efficacy among patients with epilepsy.

“Providers have historically tended to focus on medication adherence alone, ignoring other health enhancing behaviors, even just sleep hygiene,” Dr. Kobau said. But adequate sleep, regular exercise, a healthy diet, avoidance of tobacco and excessive alcohol, and stress management are all important for seizure management. 

In 2007, CDC launched the Managing Epilepsy Well (MEW) Network, which has the mission of advancing self-management research in collaboration with patients with epilepsy as well as a broad range of healthcare providers. “It’s a patient-driven kind of approach consistent with community-based, participatory practice research,” said Dr. Kobau, who oversees the initiative.

The MEW network, which consists of six prevention research centers funded by CDC, has piloted and evaluated several evidence-based programs that can help patients better control their epilepsy. 

One such intervention is Project Uplift, which delivers mindfulness-based cognitive-behavioral therapy in a virtual group setting. Behavioral therapy is important for people with seizure disorders, whose risk for depression is more than twice that of the general population. The initial trial found the intervention was effective in reducing depressive symptoms in participants, and research since has focused on adapting the program to provide culturally appropriate care to underserved populations. The eight sessions, held weekly, are available in both English and Spanish.

Another program, HOBSCOTCH, allows patients to meet one-on-one virtually with a trained coach to work on skills for improving attention and memory, common problems among people with epilepsy.

MINDSET involves a tablet-based clinical decision tool that patients can use to track their self-management behaviors, such as taking their medications, seizure triggers, symptoms of depression, and keeping their clinic appointments. It also helps them monitor whether they are getting adequate sleep, reducing their stress, and maintaining social networks. The tool generates a printable action plan for patients to prompt discussion and shared decision-making between patient and clinician to prioritize behavioral issues, set goals, and monitor changes over time.

Clinicians can refer patients to any of the MEW interventions, or patients can enroll themselves online.

 

Emerging Approaches

The AAN’s 2019 report promoted use of technological solutions to bridge the gap between primary care providers and scarce — as well as distant — neurologists. Many health systems support e-consults between clinicians, allowing simple discussions about medications and advice about testing recommended prior to a neurology visit. Initially developed for treatment for infection with hepatitis C virus, Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) uses a central hub of specialists to support primary care providers via teleconference to conduct case reviews and didactic sessions. 

Much of Dr. Joshi’s work has focused on ways to coordinate care to children who live far from a pediatric epilepsy center. In a previous position at the University of Michigan, her team was one of four sites funded by the AAP’s National Coordinating Center for Epilepsy to pilot an intervention using telehealth. Implemented in 2017-2019, the initiative used quality improvement methodology to explore a model where patients went to the office of their primary care provider so that both could participate in the call with a neurologist.

The strategy was successful, resulting in reduced out-of-pocket costs, missed school hours, and missed work hours. Patient satisfaction was high (97%), and more parents in the intervention group than the control group agreed that it was easier to obtain appointments with specialists (95% vs 65%, respectively).

And since the pandemic, in-home telehealth visits have become commonplace, adding to the potential convenience and cost savings of telemedicine. 

CDC has invested in Project ECHO as a training program for nonspecialist providers to manage epilepsy. Based at the University of Cincinnati, the initial pilot from 2017 to 2019 trained primary care providers in Ohio and neighboring states using monthly 1-hour sessions via Zoom. According to Dr. Kobau, “Of those 164 primary care providers, 97% reported higher interest in improving their care of patients with epilepsy, and at least 98% reported that they were more confident in treating their patients with epilepsy.” Since that time, over 900 providers have received the training, which now attracts participants from all over the country.

Although the current burden of managing epilepsy now seems to be falling heavily on primary care providers, Dr. Lado said he believes they can provide useful insight into their patients’ history and needs: “I think they are in a unique and impactful position, mostly to refer those patients who are still having seizures.”
 

Additional Resources for Patients and Providers

• American Academy of Pediatrics National Coordinating Center for Epilepsy 
• American Epilepsy Society  (CME courses designed to designed to increase knowledge about epilepsy diagnosis, treatment, and management; seizure first-aid; epilepsy stigma; and social determinants of health for people with epilepsy)  
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention   .

Dr. Joshi, Dr. Kobau, and Dr. Lado report no relevant financial relationships. 

Dr. Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist living in Portland, Oregon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 1.1% of US adults have epilepsy. Although 89% report seeing a physician in the past year about their condition, only 62% of adults saw a neurologist or seizure specialist. 

These findings prompted Rosemary Kobau, MPH, the acting team lead for the CDC’s epilepsy program, to take a closer look at referral patterns by primary care providers in the United States. Using data from a 2018 online survey of US internists, pediatricians, family medicine physicians, and nurse practitioners, she found that 90% of providers would refer a patient with new-onset seizure to a neurologist.

She also noticed what she calls a “big red flag”: “We found that 40% of primary care providers did not indicate that they would refer their patient with epilepsy to a neurologist when their patient fails to respond to treatment, or if they have a change in seizure activity,” Dr. Kobau told this news organization. Individuals with uncontrolled seizures are at risk for multiple adverse health outcomes, along with emotional problems, social stigma, and decreased life expectancy. 

Factors that influenced primary care clinicians to refer to a neurologist included prompt availability of appointments, ability to talk to the neurologist, and whether a patient’s insurance covered specialty visits. Proximity of a specialist also was cited as a barrier, because neurologists can be hard to find outside of urban centers.

Wait lists for neurologist are not like to get shorter any time soon, according to a 2019 report from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). A 2013 workforce report from the AAN found 35 US states, representing 62% of the US population, had fewer neurologists than needed to meet demand. By 2025, demand is projected to exceed supply in 41 states. 

Much of the increasing demand for adult neurologists is driven by aging of the population, resulting in higher rates of stroke, Parkinson’s disease, and dementia. But pediatric neurologists are also overwhelmed: Pediatric neurology is one of the top three pediatric subspecialties with the longest wait times. The shortage is exacerbated by difficulties in transitioning adolescents with epilepsy — many diagnosed early in life with neurodevelopmental and epileptic encephalopathy and problem lists that include learning disorders, behavioral issues, and other chronic medical problems — to adult epilepsy specialists. 

Although one of the solutions offered by the AAN is more training in epilepsy management for non-neurologists (such as CME programs developed by the American Epilepsy Society), many primary care providers are overwhelmed already. Still, primary care providers are well-positioned to help answer some of the most important questions about the management of patients with seizure disorders. 
 

How to Help

“There’s a lot the pediatrician can do when a child presents with seizures,” said Sucheta Joshi, MD, who serves as the medical director of the Neurological Institute Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

Step one is helping to allay the fears of family members who witness a seizure. “They can talk about seizure safety, they can talk about first aid when a seizure happens, they can talk about what to do, what not to do,” she advised. Clinicians who see children can find resources for families on the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) National Coordinating Center for Epilepsy website, including a 24/7 helpline, information about local chapters of the Epilepsy Foundation, and first aid training for seizures. 

Fred Lado, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Norwell in Hempstead, New York, said that primary care clinicians have several decision points when it comes to their patients with epilepsy.

The first is whether to initiate medication after the first episode of seizure. Studies show that the risk for a second seizure decreases in patients started on anticonvulsant therapy after a first event, but many clinicians don›t want to commit patients to long-term therapy without more evidence that the patient has epilepsy. Studies have shown that delaying therapy until a second seizure occurs doesn›t negatively affect quality of life and long-term prognosis. 

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) advised treatment for patients with two or more unprovoked seizures but revised its recommendation in 2014 to begin treatment after a first seizure for individuals at high risk for a second seizure. History of a brain insult related to a stroke, mass lesion in the brain, or trauma are risk factors for a second seizure, whereas seizures provoked by a concussion, alcohol withdrawal, or exposure to toxins carry low risk for additional episodes.

Dr. Lado also raised the importance of taking a good history from a patient presenting for medical care for a new-onset seizure to determine whether the recent episode is really the first such incident.

Up to half of patients presenting to emergency departments for convulsive seizures have a history of a preceding nonmotor seizure that the patient or their family members have failed to identify. As many as 60% of people with epilepsy have focal seizures, but the majority of these are nonmotor seizures. As a result, these patients often go without a diagnosis until they develop bilateral tonic-clonic seizures — by which time they may already been injured during a seizure or had an accident while driving.

In terms of imaging and other workup that should be performed prior to the first appointment with a pediatric neurologist or epilepsy specialist, Dr. Joshi generally recommends EEG. She also prefers MRI over CT, which is better for finding lesions that tend to cause seizures in kids such as developmental abnormalities like a cortical malformation or a perinatal process. Obtaining an MRI prior to seeing the neurologist is elective, depending on whether the history and clinical presentation suggest a focal lesion.

For adults, Dr. Lado also recommends an EEG and MRI to start but rarely advises other laboratory studies. When patients present to the emergency department with a new-onset seizure, the workup commonly includes a chemistry panel to rule out hypoglycemia or electrolyte abnormalities. But in the outpatient setting, where a patient describes symptoms of a seizure that occurred a week ago or longer, Dr. Lado said the yield of such assessments is low. 

“I think the labs are often more useful as you’re thinking about an anticonvulsant,” Dr. Lado said. Particularly for a patient who is facing a long wait to see specialist, obtaining baseline liver enzymes and a complete blood cell count is worthwhile, because many antiseizure medications can cause anemia or liver damage.

Dr. Lado agreed that referral to a specialist is critical for patients with drug-resistant seizures, defined by the ILAE as seizures that persist despite the use of two or more anticonvulsants. 

“One of the great problems in epilepsy care is a sort of sense of complacency,” he said. Some of his own patients have become comfortable with their epilepsy diagnosis and profess to be untroubled by having a few seizures per year. In 2018, Dr. Kobau was a co-author on a study reporting that less than half of US adults taking seizure medications were seizure-free in the past year. 

This scenario is an opportunity for primary care providers to help determine whether their patients are taking their antiseizure medication correctly. A referral to a specialist might not be necessary if the seizures are occurring because the patient’s prescription ran out. Similarly, if a patient doesn’t take the medication because of unpleasant side effects, raising the dose won’t help. 

Dr. Lado’s advice is to explore why the patient’s management plan is not working and make adjustments tailored to their needs. The solution might be as simple as changing the patient to an extended-release formulation to lower the number of daily doses needed, he said.

But for patients who do have recurrent seizures despite good adherence, Dr. Lado strongly urges a referral to an epilepsy specialist. He serves as president of the National Association of Epilepsy Centers (NAEC), a network of more than 260 epilepsy centers in the United States that offer the services of epileptologists, neurosurgeons, neuropsychologists, nurse specialists, EEG technologists, social workers, and others with training and experience in epilepsy care. In addition to adjusting and monitoring medications, patients seen at an NAEC can be evaluated for surgery, neurostimulators, and ketogenic diets.
 

Improving Self-Management

Another role that primary care can play is promoting self-efficacy among patients with epilepsy.

“Providers have historically tended to focus on medication adherence alone, ignoring other health enhancing behaviors, even just sleep hygiene,” Dr. Kobau said. But adequate sleep, regular exercise, a healthy diet, avoidance of tobacco and excessive alcohol, and stress management are all important for seizure management. 

In 2007, CDC launched the Managing Epilepsy Well (MEW) Network, which has the mission of advancing self-management research in collaboration with patients with epilepsy as well as a broad range of healthcare providers. “It’s a patient-driven kind of approach consistent with community-based, participatory practice research,” said Dr. Kobau, who oversees the initiative.

The MEW network, which consists of six prevention research centers funded by CDC, has piloted and evaluated several evidence-based programs that can help patients better control their epilepsy. 

One such intervention is Project Uplift, which delivers mindfulness-based cognitive-behavioral therapy in a virtual group setting. Behavioral therapy is important for people with seizure disorders, whose risk for depression is more than twice that of the general population. The initial trial found the intervention was effective in reducing depressive symptoms in participants, and research since has focused on adapting the program to provide culturally appropriate care to underserved populations. The eight sessions, held weekly, are available in both English and Spanish.

Another program, HOBSCOTCH, allows patients to meet one-on-one virtually with a trained coach to work on skills for improving attention and memory, common problems among people with epilepsy.

MINDSET involves a tablet-based clinical decision tool that patients can use to track their self-management behaviors, such as taking their medications, seizure triggers, symptoms of depression, and keeping their clinic appointments. It also helps them monitor whether they are getting adequate sleep, reducing their stress, and maintaining social networks. The tool generates a printable action plan for patients to prompt discussion and shared decision-making between patient and clinician to prioritize behavioral issues, set goals, and monitor changes over time.

Clinicians can refer patients to any of the MEW interventions, or patients can enroll themselves online.

 

Emerging Approaches

The AAN’s 2019 report promoted use of technological solutions to bridge the gap between primary care providers and scarce — as well as distant — neurologists. Many health systems support e-consults between clinicians, allowing simple discussions about medications and advice about testing recommended prior to a neurology visit. Initially developed for treatment for infection with hepatitis C virus, Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) uses a central hub of specialists to support primary care providers via teleconference to conduct case reviews and didactic sessions. 

Much of Dr. Joshi’s work has focused on ways to coordinate care to children who live far from a pediatric epilepsy center. In a previous position at the University of Michigan, her team was one of four sites funded by the AAP’s National Coordinating Center for Epilepsy to pilot an intervention using telehealth. Implemented in 2017-2019, the initiative used quality improvement methodology to explore a model where patients went to the office of their primary care provider so that both could participate in the call with a neurologist.

The strategy was successful, resulting in reduced out-of-pocket costs, missed school hours, and missed work hours. Patient satisfaction was high (97%), and more parents in the intervention group than the control group agreed that it was easier to obtain appointments with specialists (95% vs 65%, respectively).

And since the pandemic, in-home telehealth visits have become commonplace, adding to the potential convenience and cost savings of telemedicine. 

CDC has invested in Project ECHO as a training program for nonspecialist providers to manage epilepsy. Based at the University of Cincinnati, the initial pilot from 2017 to 2019 trained primary care providers in Ohio and neighboring states using monthly 1-hour sessions via Zoom. According to Dr. Kobau, “Of those 164 primary care providers, 97% reported higher interest in improving their care of patients with epilepsy, and at least 98% reported that they were more confident in treating their patients with epilepsy.” Since that time, over 900 providers have received the training, which now attracts participants from all over the country.

Although the current burden of managing epilepsy now seems to be falling heavily on primary care providers, Dr. Lado said he believes they can provide useful insight into their patients’ history and needs: “I think they are in a unique and impactful position, mostly to refer those patients who are still having seizures.”
 

Additional Resources for Patients and Providers

• American Academy of Pediatrics National Coordinating Center for Epilepsy 
• American Epilepsy Society  (CME courses designed to designed to increase knowledge about epilepsy diagnosis, treatment, and management; seizure first-aid; epilepsy stigma; and social determinants of health for people with epilepsy)  
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention   .

Dr. Joshi, Dr. Kobau, and Dr. Lado report no relevant financial relationships. 

Dr. Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist living in Portland, Oregon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 1.1% of US adults have epilepsy. Although 89% report seeing a physician in the past year about their condition, only 62% of adults saw a neurologist or seizure specialist. 

These findings prompted Rosemary Kobau, MPH, the acting team lead for the CDC’s epilepsy program, to take a closer look at referral patterns by primary care providers in the United States. Using data from a 2018 online survey of US internists, pediatricians, family medicine physicians, and nurse practitioners, she found that 90% of providers would refer a patient with new-onset seizure to a neurologist.

She also noticed what she calls a “big red flag”: “We found that 40% of primary care providers did not indicate that they would refer their patient with epilepsy to a neurologist when their patient fails to respond to treatment, or if they have a change in seizure activity,” Dr. Kobau told this news organization. Individuals with uncontrolled seizures are at risk for multiple adverse health outcomes, along with emotional problems, social stigma, and decreased life expectancy. 

Factors that influenced primary care clinicians to refer to a neurologist included prompt availability of appointments, ability to talk to the neurologist, and whether a patient’s insurance covered specialty visits. Proximity of a specialist also was cited as a barrier, because neurologists can be hard to find outside of urban centers.

Wait lists for neurologist are not like to get shorter any time soon, according to a 2019 report from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). A 2013 workforce report from the AAN found 35 US states, representing 62% of the US population, had fewer neurologists than needed to meet demand. By 2025, demand is projected to exceed supply in 41 states. 

Much of the increasing demand for adult neurologists is driven by aging of the population, resulting in higher rates of stroke, Parkinson’s disease, and dementia. But pediatric neurologists are also overwhelmed: Pediatric neurology is one of the top three pediatric subspecialties with the longest wait times. The shortage is exacerbated by difficulties in transitioning adolescents with epilepsy — many diagnosed early in life with neurodevelopmental and epileptic encephalopathy and problem lists that include learning disorders, behavioral issues, and other chronic medical problems — to adult epilepsy specialists. 

Although one of the solutions offered by the AAN is more training in epilepsy management for non-neurologists (such as CME programs developed by the American Epilepsy Society), many primary care providers are overwhelmed already. Still, primary care providers are well-positioned to help answer some of the most important questions about the management of patients with seizure disorders. 
 

How to Help

“There’s a lot the pediatrician can do when a child presents with seizures,” said Sucheta Joshi, MD, who serves as the medical director of the Neurological Institute Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

Step one is helping to allay the fears of family members who witness a seizure. “They can talk about seizure safety, they can talk about first aid when a seizure happens, they can talk about what to do, what not to do,” she advised. Clinicians who see children can find resources for families on the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) National Coordinating Center for Epilepsy website, including a 24/7 helpline, information about local chapters of the Epilepsy Foundation, and first aid training for seizures. 

Fred Lado, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Norwell in Hempstead, New York, said that primary care clinicians have several decision points when it comes to their patients with epilepsy.

The first is whether to initiate medication after the first episode of seizure. Studies show that the risk for a second seizure decreases in patients started on anticonvulsant therapy after a first event, but many clinicians don›t want to commit patients to long-term therapy without more evidence that the patient has epilepsy. Studies have shown that delaying therapy until a second seizure occurs doesn›t negatively affect quality of life and long-term prognosis. 

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) advised treatment for patients with two or more unprovoked seizures but revised its recommendation in 2014 to begin treatment after a first seizure for individuals at high risk for a second seizure. History of a brain insult related to a stroke, mass lesion in the brain, or trauma are risk factors for a second seizure, whereas seizures provoked by a concussion, alcohol withdrawal, or exposure to toxins carry low risk for additional episodes.

Dr. Lado also raised the importance of taking a good history from a patient presenting for medical care for a new-onset seizure to determine whether the recent episode is really the first such incident.

Up to half of patients presenting to emergency departments for convulsive seizures have a history of a preceding nonmotor seizure that the patient or their family members have failed to identify. As many as 60% of people with epilepsy have focal seizures, but the majority of these are nonmotor seizures. As a result, these patients often go without a diagnosis until they develop bilateral tonic-clonic seizures — by which time they may already been injured during a seizure or had an accident while driving.

In terms of imaging and other workup that should be performed prior to the first appointment with a pediatric neurologist or epilepsy specialist, Dr. Joshi generally recommends EEG. She also prefers MRI over CT, which is better for finding lesions that tend to cause seizures in kids such as developmental abnormalities like a cortical malformation or a perinatal process. Obtaining an MRI prior to seeing the neurologist is elective, depending on whether the history and clinical presentation suggest a focal lesion.

For adults, Dr. Lado also recommends an EEG and MRI to start but rarely advises other laboratory studies. When patients present to the emergency department with a new-onset seizure, the workup commonly includes a chemistry panel to rule out hypoglycemia or electrolyte abnormalities. But in the outpatient setting, where a patient describes symptoms of a seizure that occurred a week ago or longer, Dr. Lado said the yield of such assessments is low. 

“I think the labs are often more useful as you’re thinking about an anticonvulsant,” Dr. Lado said. Particularly for a patient who is facing a long wait to see specialist, obtaining baseline liver enzymes and a complete blood cell count is worthwhile, because many antiseizure medications can cause anemia or liver damage.

Dr. Lado agreed that referral to a specialist is critical for patients with drug-resistant seizures, defined by the ILAE as seizures that persist despite the use of two or more anticonvulsants. 

“One of the great problems in epilepsy care is a sort of sense of complacency,” he said. Some of his own patients have become comfortable with their epilepsy diagnosis and profess to be untroubled by having a few seizures per year. In 2018, Dr. Kobau was a co-author on a study reporting that less than half of US adults taking seizure medications were seizure-free in the past year. 

This scenario is an opportunity for primary care providers to help determine whether their patients are taking their antiseizure medication correctly. A referral to a specialist might not be necessary if the seizures are occurring because the patient’s prescription ran out. Similarly, if a patient doesn’t take the medication because of unpleasant side effects, raising the dose won’t help. 

Dr. Lado’s advice is to explore why the patient’s management plan is not working and make adjustments tailored to their needs. The solution might be as simple as changing the patient to an extended-release formulation to lower the number of daily doses needed, he said.

But for patients who do have recurrent seizures despite good adherence, Dr. Lado strongly urges a referral to an epilepsy specialist. He serves as president of the National Association of Epilepsy Centers (NAEC), a network of more than 260 epilepsy centers in the United States that offer the services of epileptologists, neurosurgeons, neuropsychologists, nurse specialists, EEG technologists, social workers, and others with training and experience in epilepsy care. In addition to adjusting and monitoring medications, patients seen at an NAEC can be evaluated for surgery, neurostimulators, and ketogenic diets.
 

Improving Self-Management

Another role that primary care can play is promoting self-efficacy among patients with epilepsy.

“Providers have historically tended to focus on medication adherence alone, ignoring other health enhancing behaviors, even just sleep hygiene,” Dr. Kobau said. But adequate sleep, regular exercise, a healthy diet, avoidance of tobacco and excessive alcohol, and stress management are all important for seizure management. 

In 2007, CDC launched the Managing Epilepsy Well (MEW) Network, which has the mission of advancing self-management research in collaboration with patients with epilepsy as well as a broad range of healthcare providers. “It’s a patient-driven kind of approach consistent with community-based, participatory practice research,” said Dr. Kobau, who oversees the initiative.

The MEW network, which consists of six prevention research centers funded by CDC, has piloted and evaluated several evidence-based programs that can help patients better control their epilepsy. 

One such intervention is Project Uplift, which delivers mindfulness-based cognitive-behavioral therapy in a virtual group setting. Behavioral therapy is important for people with seizure disorders, whose risk for depression is more than twice that of the general population. The initial trial found the intervention was effective in reducing depressive symptoms in participants, and research since has focused on adapting the program to provide culturally appropriate care to underserved populations. The eight sessions, held weekly, are available in both English and Spanish.

Another program, HOBSCOTCH, allows patients to meet one-on-one virtually with a trained coach to work on skills for improving attention and memory, common problems among people with epilepsy.

MINDSET involves a tablet-based clinical decision tool that patients can use to track their self-management behaviors, such as taking their medications, seizure triggers, symptoms of depression, and keeping their clinic appointments. It also helps them monitor whether they are getting adequate sleep, reducing their stress, and maintaining social networks. The tool generates a printable action plan for patients to prompt discussion and shared decision-making between patient and clinician to prioritize behavioral issues, set goals, and monitor changes over time.

Clinicians can refer patients to any of the MEW interventions, or patients can enroll themselves online.

 

Emerging Approaches

The AAN’s 2019 report promoted use of technological solutions to bridge the gap between primary care providers and scarce — as well as distant — neurologists. Many health systems support e-consults between clinicians, allowing simple discussions about medications and advice about testing recommended prior to a neurology visit. Initially developed for treatment for infection with hepatitis C virus, Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) uses a central hub of specialists to support primary care providers via teleconference to conduct case reviews and didactic sessions. 

Much of Dr. Joshi’s work has focused on ways to coordinate care to children who live far from a pediatric epilepsy center. In a previous position at the University of Michigan, her team was one of four sites funded by the AAP’s National Coordinating Center for Epilepsy to pilot an intervention using telehealth. Implemented in 2017-2019, the initiative used quality improvement methodology to explore a model where patients went to the office of their primary care provider so that both could participate in the call with a neurologist.

The strategy was successful, resulting in reduced out-of-pocket costs, missed school hours, and missed work hours. Patient satisfaction was high (97%), and more parents in the intervention group than the control group agreed that it was easier to obtain appointments with specialists (95% vs 65%, respectively).

And since the pandemic, in-home telehealth visits have become commonplace, adding to the potential convenience and cost savings of telemedicine. 

CDC has invested in Project ECHO as a training program for nonspecialist providers to manage epilepsy. Based at the University of Cincinnati, the initial pilot from 2017 to 2019 trained primary care providers in Ohio and neighboring states using monthly 1-hour sessions via Zoom. According to Dr. Kobau, “Of those 164 primary care providers, 97% reported higher interest in improving their care of patients with epilepsy, and at least 98% reported that they were more confident in treating their patients with epilepsy.” Since that time, over 900 providers have received the training, which now attracts participants from all over the country.

Although the current burden of managing epilepsy now seems to be falling heavily on primary care providers, Dr. Lado said he believes they can provide useful insight into their patients’ history and needs: “I think they are in a unique and impactful position, mostly to refer those patients who are still having seizures.”
 

Additional Resources for Patients and Providers

• American Academy of Pediatrics National Coordinating Center for Epilepsy 
• American Epilepsy Society  (CME courses designed to designed to increase knowledge about epilepsy diagnosis, treatment, and management; seizure first-aid; epilepsy stigma; and social determinants of health for people with epilepsy)  
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention   .

Dr. Joshi, Dr. Kobau, and Dr. Lado report no relevant financial relationships. 

Dr. Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist living in Portland, Oregon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the esophagus that affects both children and adults. EoE is defined by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction (eg, dysphagia, vomiting, difficulty in feeding), with presentation varying depending on patient age.

The global incidence of EoE has increased in recent decades. In the United States alone, EoE is estimated to affect approximately 150,000 people and result in as much as $1.4 billion in annual healthcare costs.

There currently is no clear treatment hierarchy for EoE, and long delays between symptom onset and diagnoses are common.

Still, the knowledge base surrounding the disease is growing, and existing interventions have shown tremendous success at curbing symptoms and disease progression. The recent approvals of a monoclonal antibody and the first oral agent for EoE treatment have suddenly expanded medication options — at a time when other promising therapies are being investigated too.

To help clinicians stay up to date on the latest information on this debilitating disease, here are five things to know about EoE.

1. EoE prevalence is increasing although not consistently around the globe.

EoE was first recognized as a distinct clinical entity in the early 1990s, when it was considered a relatively rare disease. Now, the incidence and prevalence rates of EoE are escalating at rates that cannot be explained by increased disease awareness and detection. 

Although EoE has been diagnosed in Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia, such instances are relatively uncommon in comparison with the spiking rates noted in the United States; in Western Europe, including Denmark, the Netherlands, and Switzerland; and in Australia. 

Emerging data suggest that climate and location may be a factor in the varying incidence rates of EoE. An analysis of 233,649 patients in a US pathology database reported that EoE was more common in cold and arid climate zones than in tropical zones. Another study suggests that EoE is more common in low-density, rural environments compared with urban settings. 

2. Environmental and food exposures may trigger EoE, and genetics probably play a role.

The unequal geographic distribution of EoE lends credence to the theory that external triggers, which naturally differ in various locales, play an outsized role in its development.

Mice studies have indicated that the inhalation of allergens induces notable eosinophil infiltration and degranulation, and a pilot study conducted in New York City found that EoE symptoms peaked during the July-to-September period when grass pollen counts were at their highest.

Early-life factors that can result in alteration to the microbiome have also been identified as possibly influencing EoE development. They include cesarean delivery, preterm delivery, admission to a neonatal intensive care unit, infant formula use, and maternal or infant use of antibiotics. Conversely, evidence suggests that Helicobacter pylori infection may be protective against EoE due to immunomodulating effects that have not yet been sufficiently identified in the literature.

Yet, the clearest association between EoE and outside triggers is found with food exposures. In one analysis of pediatric patients, the items that were most commonly associated with elevated food-specific serum immunoglobulin E antibodies in patients with EoE were milk (78%), wheat (69%), eggs (64%), peanuts (54%), and soy (51%). Food allergies are also on the uptick in countries with rising EoE rates, suggesting that the two trends may be interrelated.

From a genetic standpoint, EoE is more likely to develop in those with first-degree relatives with the disease than in the general population. Thirty independent genes thought to be associated with EoE have been identified. EoE is also significantly more common in men than in women.

3. Diagnosis requires knowing the symptoms, excluding other disorders, and performing biopsy.

EoE can occur early in life, with approximately one third of children with the disease presenting under age 5 years. The prevalence rises with age, eventually peaking in those aged 35-45 years. 

The presentation of EoE can be quite variable depending on patient age. Pediatric patients are significantly more likely to experience failure to thrive, vomiting, and heartburn, whereas their adult counterparts more often present with food impaction and dysphagia. 

At the 2018 AGREE international consensus conference, researchers defined diagnostic criteria as presence of esophageal dysfunction symptoms; exclusion of non-EoE disorders, such as gastroesophageal reflux disease and achalasia; and esophageal biopsy findings of at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field (or approximately 60 eosinophils per mm²). 

Endoscopic findings can also be crucial in diagnosing EoE because patients with this disease often present with inflammatory patterns recognizable in the form of exudates, furrows, and edema and/or fibrotic phenotypes such as the presence of rings and stenosis. Clinicians are advised to refer to the Endoscopic Reference Score proposed by Hirano and colleagues. 

4. Treatment approaches rely on the ‘3 Ds.’

Although there is currently no leading strategy for the primary treatment of EoE, clinicians can avail themselves of suggested pathways. 

The lack of a treatment hierarchy means that patients typically are very involved in selecting the therapy that works best for them. Physicians should be aware that patients researching EoE on their own might not find the information they need. A recent study found that the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT was highly inaccurate when it came to providing answers about EoE.

The treatment strategies that clinicians and their patients can choose from revolve around the “3 Ds”: diet, drugs, and dilation. 

Diet:

Three dietary interventions are available for EoE treatment: 

• Elemental diet, in which patients consume only an amino-acid based formula that does not include any intact proteins
• Empiric elimination diet, which removes foods more commonly associated with food allergy regardless of whether there has been a positive allergy testing result
• Allergy testing-directed food elimination, which involves avoidance of all foods for which specific antibodies were detected or that tested positive on skin-prick tests

Each of these dietary interventions has clear advantages and drawbacks that should be discussed with patients. Elemental diets achieve robust histologic responses, yet their highly restrictive nature makes compliance difficult and can greatly impair patients’ quality of life. 

Empiric elimination diets are the most popular choice and have shown high response rates. A common approach is to begin by removing six common foods (milk, wheat, egg, soy, nuts, and fish/seafood), which are then gradually reintroduced to identify the culprits. However, patients must be motivated to follow this process, and the likelihood it will be successful is greatly enhanced with assistance from a dietitian, which may not always be possible.

Last, allergy testing-guided food elimination diets have been reported to produce remissions rates of just under 50%, and the skin allergy tests they primarily rely on have been criticized for being unreliable. 

Drugs:

The treatment of EoE experienced a significant advance in 2022 when dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to the interleukin (IL)–4 receptor alpha, became the first drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating EoE in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older. The drug was approved by the European Commission in 2023. In late January 2024, the FDA expanded dupilumab’s approval to children aged 1-11 years and weighing ≥ 15 kg after positive histologic remission and safety results were reported in the two-part phase 3 EoE KIDS trial. 

In addition, the FDA approved budesonide, the first oral treatment for EoE, in February 2024. 

These approvals have expanded treatment options beyond proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and topical glucocorticosteroids, both of which received only nuanced recommendations for use under US and UK clinical guidelines. 

A recent meta-analysis found that PPIs, off-label and EoE-specific topical steroids, and biologics had greater efficacy than did placebo in achieving histological remission. However, significant heterogeneity in the included studies’ eligibility criteria and outcome measures prevented development of a “solid therapeutic hierarchy,” the authors noted. 

In addition, researchers are investigating therapies targeting IL-5 (eg, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab) and other key inflammatory mediators in EoE, such as Siglec-8 (lirentelimab), IL-13 (cendakimab), and the sphingosine 1–phosphate receptor (etrasimod). 

Dilation:

Finally, patients with significant strictures can benefit from dilation performed via through-the-scope balloons or Savary-Gilliard bougies, which can significantly and immediately improve symptoms even if they cannot address the underlying inflammation. Concerns that dilation would lead to increased complications, such as perforation and mucosal tears, do not appear to be borne out by recent data. 

5. Reducing diagnosis delays is crucial for limiting EoE-associated morbidity.

Despite efforts to bring attention to EoE, evidence suggests that delays between symptom onset and diagnosis are common, and result in treatment delays. One study found a median lag time of 6 years. 

The longer the delay in treatment, the more likely patients are to develop esophageal rings, a long narrowing in the esophageal caliber, or focal strictures. For example, diagnostic delays of more than 20 years result in prevalence rates of 70.8% for esophageal strictures, compared with 17.2% with delays of 0-2 years. 

Simply put, the sooner one can identify EoE and begin treatment, the more likely patients are to be spared its worst effects. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the esophagus that affects both children and adults. EoE is defined by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction (eg, dysphagia, vomiting, difficulty in feeding), with presentation varying depending on patient age.

The global incidence of EoE has increased in recent decades. In the United States alone, EoE is estimated to affect approximately 150,000 people and result in as much as $1.4 billion in annual healthcare costs.

There currently is no clear treatment hierarchy for EoE, and long delays between symptom onset and diagnoses are common.

Still, the knowledge base surrounding the disease is growing, and existing interventions have shown tremendous success at curbing symptoms and disease progression. The recent approvals of a monoclonal antibody and the first oral agent for EoE treatment have suddenly expanded medication options — at a time when other promising therapies are being investigated too.

To help clinicians stay up to date on the latest information on this debilitating disease, here are five things to know about EoE.

1. EoE prevalence is increasing although not consistently around the globe.

EoE was first recognized as a distinct clinical entity in the early 1990s, when it was considered a relatively rare disease. Now, the incidence and prevalence rates of EoE are escalating at rates that cannot be explained by increased disease awareness and detection. 

Although EoE has been diagnosed in Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia, such instances are relatively uncommon in comparison with the spiking rates noted in the United States; in Western Europe, including Denmark, the Netherlands, and Switzerland; and in Australia. 

Emerging data suggest that climate and location may be a factor in the varying incidence rates of EoE. An analysis of 233,649 patients in a US pathology database reported that EoE was more common in cold and arid climate zones than in tropical zones. Another study suggests that EoE is more common in low-density, rural environments compared with urban settings. 

2. Environmental and food exposures may trigger EoE, and genetics probably play a role.

The unequal geographic distribution of EoE lends credence to the theory that external triggers, which naturally differ in various locales, play an outsized role in its development.

Mice studies have indicated that the inhalation of allergens induces notable eosinophil infiltration and degranulation, and a pilot study conducted in New York City found that EoE symptoms peaked during the July-to-September period when grass pollen counts were at their highest.

Early-life factors that can result in alteration to the microbiome have also been identified as possibly influencing EoE development. They include cesarean delivery, preterm delivery, admission to a neonatal intensive care unit, infant formula use, and maternal or infant use of antibiotics. Conversely, evidence suggests that Helicobacter pylori infection may be protective against EoE due to immunomodulating effects that have not yet been sufficiently identified in the literature.

Yet, the clearest association between EoE and outside triggers is found with food exposures. In one analysis of pediatric patients, the items that were most commonly associated with elevated food-specific serum immunoglobulin E antibodies in patients with EoE were milk (78%), wheat (69%), eggs (64%), peanuts (54%), and soy (51%). Food allergies are also on the uptick in countries with rising EoE rates, suggesting that the two trends may be interrelated.

From a genetic standpoint, EoE is more likely to develop in those with first-degree relatives with the disease than in the general population. Thirty independent genes thought to be associated with EoE have been identified. EoE is also significantly more common in men than in women.

3. Diagnosis requires knowing the symptoms, excluding other disorders, and performing biopsy.

EoE can occur early in life, with approximately one third of children with the disease presenting under age 5 years. The prevalence rises with age, eventually peaking in those aged 35-45 years. 

The presentation of EoE can be quite variable depending on patient age. Pediatric patients are significantly more likely to experience failure to thrive, vomiting, and heartburn, whereas their adult counterparts more often present with food impaction and dysphagia. 

At the 2018 AGREE international consensus conference, researchers defined diagnostic criteria as presence of esophageal dysfunction symptoms; exclusion of non-EoE disorders, such as gastroesophageal reflux disease and achalasia; and esophageal biopsy findings of at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field (or approximately 60 eosinophils per mm²). 

Endoscopic findings can also be crucial in diagnosing EoE because patients with this disease often present with inflammatory patterns recognizable in the form of exudates, furrows, and edema and/or fibrotic phenotypes such as the presence of rings and stenosis. Clinicians are advised to refer to the Endoscopic Reference Score proposed by Hirano and colleagues. 

4. Treatment approaches rely on the ‘3 Ds.’

Although there is currently no leading strategy for the primary treatment of EoE, clinicians can avail themselves of suggested pathways. 

The lack of a treatment hierarchy means that patients typically are very involved in selecting the therapy that works best for them. Physicians should be aware that patients researching EoE on their own might not find the information they need. A recent study found that the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT was highly inaccurate when it came to providing answers about EoE.

The treatment strategies that clinicians and their patients can choose from revolve around the “3 Ds”: diet, drugs, and dilation. 

Diet:

Three dietary interventions are available for EoE treatment: 

• Elemental diet, in which patients consume only an amino-acid based formula that does not include any intact proteins
• Empiric elimination diet, which removes foods more commonly associated with food allergy regardless of whether there has been a positive allergy testing result
• Allergy testing-directed food elimination, which involves avoidance of all foods for which specific antibodies were detected or that tested positive on skin-prick tests

Each of these dietary interventions has clear advantages and drawbacks that should be discussed with patients. Elemental diets achieve robust histologic responses, yet their highly restrictive nature makes compliance difficult and can greatly impair patients’ quality of life. 

Empiric elimination diets are the most popular choice and have shown high response rates. A common approach is to begin by removing six common foods (milk, wheat, egg, soy, nuts, and fish/seafood), which are then gradually reintroduced to identify the culprits. However, patients must be motivated to follow this process, and the likelihood it will be successful is greatly enhanced with assistance from a dietitian, which may not always be possible.

Last, allergy testing-guided food elimination diets have been reported to produce remissions rates of just under 50%, and the skin allergy tests they primarily rely on have been criticized for being unreliable. 

Drugs:

The treatment of EoE experienced a significant advance in 2022 when dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to the interleukin (IL)–4 receptor alpha, became the first drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating EoE in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older. The drug was approved by the European Commission in 2023. In late January 2024, the FDA expanded dupilumab’s approval to children aged 1-11 years and weighing ≥ 15 kg after positive histologic remission and safety results were reported in the two-part phase 3 EoE KIDS trial. 

In addition, the FDA approved budesonide, the first oral treatment for EoE, in February 2024. 

These approvals have expanded treatment options beyond proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and topical glucocorticosteroids, both of which received only nuanced recommendations for use under US and UK clinical guidelines. 

A recent meta-analysis found that PPIs, off-label and EoE-specific topical steroids, and biologics had greater efficacy than did placebo in achieving histological remission. However, significant heterogeneity in the included studies’ eligibility criteria and outcome measures prevented development of a “solid therapeutic hierarchy,” the authors noted. 

In addition, researchers are investigating therapies targeting IL-5 (eg, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab) and other key inflammatory mediators in EoE, such as Siglec-8 (lirentelimab), IL-13 (cendakimab), and the sphingosine 1–phosphate receptor (etrasimod). 

Dilation:

Finally, patients with significant strictures can benefit from dilation performed via through-the-scope balloons or Savary-Gilliard bougies, which can significantly and immediately improve symptoms even if they cannot address the underlying inflammation. Concerns that dilation would lead to increased complications, such as perforation and mucosal tears, do not appear to be borne out by recent data. 

5. Reducing diagnosis delays is crucial for limiting EoE-associated morbidity.

Despite efforts to bring attention to EoE, evidence suggests that delays between symptom onset and diagnosis are common, and result in treatment delays. One study found a median lag time of 6 years. 

The longer the delay in treatment, the more likely patients are to develop esophageal rings, a long narrowing in the esophageal caliber, or focal strictures. For example, diagnostic delays of more than 20 years result in prevalence rates of 70.8% for esophageal strictures, compared with 17.2% with delays of 0-2 years. 

Simply put, the sooner one can identify EoE and begin treatment, the more likely patients are to be spared its worst effects. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the esophagus that affects both children and adults. EoE is defined by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction (eg, dysphagia, vomiting, difficulty in feeding), with presentation varying depending on patient age.

The global incidence of EoE has increased in recent decades. In the United States alone, EoE is estimated to affect approximately 150,000 people and result in as much as $1.4 billion in annual healthcare costs.

There currently is no clear treatment hierarchy for EoE, and long delays between symptom onset and diagnoses are common.

Still, the knowledge base surrounding the disease is growing, and existing interventions have shown tremendous success at curbing symptoms and disease progression. The recent approvals of a monoclonal antibody and the first oral agent for EoE treatment have suddenly expanded medication options — at a time when other promising therapies are being investigated too.

To help clinicians stay up to date on the latest information on this debilitating disease, here are five things to know about EoE.

1. EoE prevalence is increasing although not consistently around the globe.

EoE was first recognized as a distinct clinical entity in the early 1990s, when it was considered a relatively rare disease. Now, the incidence and prevalence rates of EoE are escalating at rates that cannot be explained by increased disease awareness and detection. 

Although EoE has been diagnosed in Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia, such instances are relatively uncommon in comparison with the spiking rates noted in the United States; in Western Europe, including Denmark, the Netherlands, and Switzerland; and in Australia. 

Emerging data suggest that climate and location may be a factor in the varying incidence rates of EoE. An analysis of 233,649 patients in a US pathology database reported that EoE was more common in cold and arid climate zones than in tropical zones. Another study suggests that EoE is more common in low-density, rural environments compared with urban settings. 

2. Environmental and food exposures may trigger EoE, and genetics probably play a role.

The unequal geographic distribution of EoE lends credence to the theory that external triggers, which naturally differ in various locales, play an outsized role in its development.

Mice studies have indicated that the inhalation of allergens induces notable eosinophil infiltration and degranulation, and a pilot study conducted in New York City found that EoE symptoms peaked during the July-to-September period when grass pollen counts were at their highest.

Early-life factors that can result in alteration to the microbiome have also been identified as possibly influencing EoE development. They include cesarean delivery, preterm delivery, admission to a neonatal intensive care unit, infant formula use, and maternal or infant use of antibiotics. Conversely, evidence suggests that Helicobacter pylori infection may be protective against EoE due to immunomodulating effects that have not yet been sufficiently identified in the literature.

Yet, the clearest association between EoE and outside triggers is found with food exposures. In one analysis of pediatric patients, the items that were most commonly associated with elevated food-specific serum immunoglobulin E antibodies in patients with EoE were milk (78%), wheat (69%), eggs (64%), peanuts (54%), and soy (51%). Food allergies are also on the uptick in countries with rising EoE rates, suggesting that the two trends may be interrelated.

From a genetic standpoint, EoE is more likely to develop in those with first-degree relatives with the disease than in the general population. Thirty independent genes thought to be associated with EoE have been identified. EoE is also significantly more common in men than in women.

3. Diagnosis requires knowing the symptoms, excluding other disorders, and performing biopsy.

EoE can occur early in life, with approximately one third of children with the disease presenting under age 5 years. The prevalence rises with age, eventually peaking in those aged 35-45 years. 

The presentation of EoE can be quite variable depending on patient age. Pediatric patients are significantly more likely to experience failure to thrive, vomiting, and heartburn, whereas their adult counterparts more often present with food impaction and dysphagia. 

At the 2018 AGREE international consensus conference, researchers defined diagnostic criteria as presence of esophageal dysfunction symptoms; exclusion of non-EoE disorders, such as gastroesophageal reflux disease and achalasia; and esophageal biopsy findings of at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field (or approximately 60 eosinophils per mm²). 

Endoscopic findings can also be crucial in diagnosing EoE because patients with this disease often present with inflammatory patterns recognizable in the form of exudates, furrows, and edema and/or fibrotic phenotypes such as the presence of rings and stenosis. Clinicians are advised to refer to the Endoscopic Reference Score proposed by Hirano and colleagues. 

4. Treatment approaches rely on the ‘3 Ds.’

Although there is currently no leading strategy for the primary treatment of EoE, clinicians can avail themselves of suggested pathways. 

The lack of a treatment hierarchy means that patients typically are very involved in selecting the therapy that works best for them. Physicians should be aware that patients researching EoE on their own might not find the information they need. A recent study found that the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT was highly inaccurate when it came to providing answers about EoE.

The treatment strategies that clinicians and their patients can choose from revolve around the “3 Ds”: diet, drugs, and dilation. 

Diet:

Three dietary interventions are available for EoE treatment: 

• Elemental diet, in which patients consume only an amino-acid based formula that does not include any intact proteins
• Empiric elimination diet, which removes foods more commonly associated with food allergy regardless of whether there has been a positive allergy testing result
• Allergy testing-directed food elimination, which involves avoidance of all foods for which specific antibodies were detected or that tested positive on skin-prick tests

Each of these dietary interventions has clear advantages and drawbacks that should be discussed with patients. Elemental diets achieve robust histologic responses, yet their highly restrictive nature makes compliance difficult and can greatly impair patients’ quality of life. 

Empiric elimination diets are the most popular choice and have shown high response rates. A common approach is to begin by removing six common foods (milk, wheat, egg, soy, nuts, and fish/seafood), which are then gradually reintroduced to identify the culprits. However, patients must be motivated to follow this process, and the likelihood it will be successful is greatly enhanced with assistance from a dietitian, which may not always be possible.

Last, allergy testing-guided food elimination diets have been reported to produce remissions rates of just under 50%, and the skin allergy tests they primarily rely on have been criticized for being unreliable. 

Drugs:

The treatment of EoE experienced a significant advance in 2022 when dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to the interleukin (IL)–4 receptor alpha, became the first drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating EoE in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older. The drug was approved by the European Commission in 2023. In late January 2024, the FDA expanded dupilumab’s approval to children aged 1-11 years and weighing ≥ 15 kg after positive histologic remission and safety results were reported in the two-part phase 3 EoE KIDS trial. 

In addition, the FDA approved budesonide, the first oral treatment for EoE, in February 2024. 

These approvals have expanded treatment options beyond proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and topical glucocorticosteroids, both of which received only nuanced recommendations for use under US and UK clinical guidelines. 

A recent meta-analysis found that PPIs, off-label and EoE-specific topical steroids, and biologics had greater efficacy than did placebo in achieving histological remission. However, significant heterogeneity in the included studies’ eligibility criteria and outcome measures prevented development of a “solid therapeutic hierarchy,” the authors noted. 

In addition, researchers are investigating therapies targeting IL-5 (eg, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab) and other key inflammatory mediators in EoE, such as Siglec-8 (lirentelimab), IL-13 (cendakimab), and the sphingosine 1–phosphate receptor (etrasimod). 

Dilation:

Finally, patients with significant strictures can benefit from dilation performed via through-the-scope balloons or Savary-Gilliard bougies, which can significantly and immediately improve symptoms even if they cannot address the underlying inflammation. Concerns that dilation would lead to increased complications, such as perforation and mucosal tears, do not appear to be borne out by recent data. 

5. Reducing diagnosis delays is crucial for limiting EoE-associated morbidity.

Despite efforts to bring attention to EoE, evidence suggests that delays between symptom onset and diagnosis are common, and result in treatment delays. One study found a median lag time of 6 years. 

The longer the delay in treatment, the more likely patients are to develop esophageal rings, a long narrowing in the esophageal caliber, or focal strictures. For example, diagnostic delays of more than 20 years result in prevalence rates of 70.8% for esophageal strictures, compared with 17.2% with delays of 0-2 years. 

Simply put, the sooner one can identify EoE and begin treatment, the more likely patients are to be spared its worst effects. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lingering postinfectious cough has been a concern across Canada this winter. Patients with this symptom (defined as a subacute cough, with symptoms lasting between 3 and 8 weeks after the infection) have many questions when they come to the clinic. But there is no evidence supporting pharmacologic treatment for postinfectious cough, according to an overview published on February 12 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal

“It’s something a lot of patients are worried about: That lingering cough after a common cold or flu,” lead author Kevin Liang, MD, of the Department of Family Medicine at The University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. He added that some studies show that as much as a quarter of adult patients have this complaint.

Dr. Liang and his colleagues emphasized that the diagnosis of postinfectious cough is one of exclusion. It relies on the absence of concerning physical examination findings and other “subacute cough mimics” such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), gastroesophageal reflux disease, or use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

“Pertussis should be considered in patients with a paroxysmal cough, post-tussive vomiting, and inspiratory whoop,” they added. Coughs that persist beyond 8 weeks warrant further workup such as a pulmonary function test to rule out asthma or COPD. Coughs accompanied by hemoptysis, systemic symptoms, dysphagia, excessive dyspnea, or hoarseness also warrant further workup, they added. And patients with a history of smoking or recurrent pneumonia should be followed more closely.

In the absence of red flags, Dr. Liang and coauthors advised that there is no evidence supporting pharmacologic treatment, “which is associated with harms,” such as medication adverse effects, cost, strain on the medical supply chain, and the fact that pressurized metered-dose inhalers emit powerful greenhouse gases. “A lot of patients come in looking for solutions, but really, all the evidence says the over-the-counter cough syrup just doesn’t work. Or I see clinicians prescribing inhalers or different medication that can cost hundreds of dollars, and their efficacy, at least from the literature, shows that there’s really no improvement. Time and patience are the two keys to solving this,” Dr. Liang told this news organization.

Moreover, there is a distinct absence of guidelines on this topic. The College of Family Physicians of Canada’s recent literature review cited limited data supporting a trial of inhaled corticosteroids, a bronchodilator such as ipratropium-salbutamol, or an intranasal steroid if postnasal drip is suspected. However, “there’s a high risk of bias in the study they cite from using the short-acting bronchodilators, and what it ultimately says is that in most cases, this is self-resolving by around the 20-day mark,” said Dr. Liang. “Our advice is just to err on the side of caution and just provide that information piece to the patient.”
 

‘Significant Nuance’

Imran Satia, MD, assistant professor of respirology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, agreed that “most people who get a viral or bacterial upper or lower respiratory tract infection will get better with time, and there is very little evidence that giving steroids, antibiotics, or cough suppressants is better than waiting it out.” There is “significant nuance” in how to manage this situation, however.

“In some patients with underlying lung disease like asthma or COPD, increasing the frequency of regular inhaled steroids, bronchodilators, oral steroids, antibiotics, and chest imaging with breathing tests may be clinically warranted, and many physicians will do this,” he told this news organization. “In some patients with refractory chronic cough, there is no underlying identifiable disease, despite completing the necessary investigations. Or coughing persists despite trials of treatment for lung diseases, nasal diseases, and stomach reflux disease. This is commonly described as cough hypersensitivity syndrome, for which therapies targeting the neuronal pathways that control coughing are needed.”

Physicians should occasionally consider trying a temporary course of a short-acting bronchodilator inhaler, said Nicholas Vozoris, MD, assistant professor and clinician investigator in respirology at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. “I think that would be a reasonable first step in a case of really bad postinfectious cough,” he told this news organization. “But in general, drug treatments are not indicated.”
 

Environmental Concerns

Yet some things should raise clinicians’ suspicion of more complex issues.

“A pattern of recurrent colds or bronchitis with protracted coughing afterward raises strong suspicion for asthma, which can present as repeated, prolonged respiratory exacerbations,” he said. “Unless asthma is treated with appropriate inhaler therapy on a regular basis, it will unlikely come under control.”

Dr. Vozoris added that the environmental concerns over the use of metered dose inhalers (MDIs) are minimal compared with the other sources of pollution and the risks for undertreatment. “The authors are overplaying the environmental impact of MDI, in my opinion,” he said. “Physicians already have to deal with the challenging issue of suboptimal patient adherence to inhalers, and I fear that such comments may further drive that up. Furthermore, there is also an environmental footprint with not using inhalers, as patients can then experience suboptimally controlled lung disease as a result — and then present to the ER and get admitted to hospital for exacerbations of disease, where more resources and medications are used up.”

“In addition, in patients who are immunocompromised, protracted coughing after what was thought to be a cold may be associated with an “atypical” respiratory infection, such as tuberculosis, that will require special medical treatment,” Dr. Vozoris concluded.

No funding for the review of postinfectious cough was reported. Dr. Liang and Dr. Vozoris disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Satia reported receiving funding from the ERS Respire 3 Fellowship Award, BMA James Trust Award, North-West Lung Centre Charity (Manchester), NIHR CRF Manchester, Merck MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK. Dr. Satia also has received consulting fees from Merck MSD, Genentech, and Respiplus; as well as speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Merck MSD, Sanofi-Regeneron. Satia has served on the following task force committees: Chronic Cough (ERS), Asthma Diagnosis and Management (ERS), NEUROCOUGH (ERS CRC), and the CTS Chronic Cough working group.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lingering postinfectious cough has been a concern across Canada this winter. Patients with this symptom (defined as a subacute cough, with symptoms lasting between 3 and 8 weeks after the infection) have many questions when they come to the clinic. But there is no evidence supporting pharmacologic treatment for postinfectious cough, according to an overview published on February 12 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal

“It’s something a lot of patients are worried about: That lingering cough after a common cold or flu,” lead author Kevin Liang, MD, of the Department of Family Medicine at The University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. He added that some studies show that as much as a quarter of adult patients have this complaint.

Dr. Liang and his colleagues emphasized that the diagnosis of postinfectious cough is one of exclusion. It relies on the absence of concerning physical examination findings and other “subacute cough mimics” such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), gastroesophageal reflux disease, or use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

“Pertussis should be considered in patients with a paroxysmal cough, post-tussive vomiting, and inspiratory whoop,” they added. Coughs that persist beyond 8 weeks warrant further workup such as a pulmonary function test to rule out asthma or COPD. Coughs accompanied by hemoptysis, systemic symptoms, dysphagia, excessive dyspnea, or hoarseness also warrant further workup, they added. And patients with a history of smoking or recurrent pneumonia should be followed more closely.

In the absence of red flags, Dr. Liang and coauthors advised that there is no evidence supporting pharmacologic treatment, “which is associated with harms,” such as medication adverse effects, cost, strain on the medical supply chain, and the fact that pressurized metered-dose inhalers emit powerful greenhouse gases. “A lot of patients come in looking for solutions, but really, all the evidence says the over-the-counter cough syrup just doesn’t work. Or I see clinicians prescribing inhalers or different medication that can cost hundreds of dollars, and their efficacy, at least from the literature, shows that there’s really no improvement. Time and patience are the two keys to solving this,” Dr. Liang told this news organization.

Moreover, there is a distinct absence of guidelines on this topic. The College of Family Physicians of Canada’s recent literature review cited limited data supporting a trial of inhaled corticosteroids, a bronchodilator such as ipratropium-salbutamol, or an intranasal steroid if postnasal drip is suspected. However, “there’s a high risk of bias in the study they cite from using the short-acting bronchodilators, and what it ultimately says is that in most cases, this is self-resolving by around the 20-day mark,” said Dr. Liang. “Our advice is just to err on the side of caution and just provide that information piece to the patient.”
 

‘Significant Nuance’

Imran Satia, MD, assistant professor of respirology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, agreed that “most people who get a viral or bacterial upper or lower respiratory tract infection will get better with time, and there is very little evidence that giving steroids, antibiotics, or cough suppressants is better than waiting it out.” There is “significant nuance” in how to manage this situation, however.

“In some patients with underlying lung disease like asthma or COPD, increasing the frequency of regular inhaled steroids, bronchodilators, oral steroids, antibiotics, and chest imaging with breathing tests may be clinically warranted, and many physicians will do this,” he told this news organization. “In some patients with refractory chronic cough, there is no underlying identifiable disease, despite completing the necessary investigations. Or coughing persists despite trials of treatment for lung diseases, nasal diseases, and stomach reflux disease. This is commonly described as cough hypersensitivity syndrome, for which therapies targeting the neuronal pathways that control coughing are needed.”

Physicians should occasionally consider trying a temporary course of a short-acting bronchodilator inhaler, said Nicholas Vozoris, MD, assistant professor and clinician investigator in respirology at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. “I think that would be a reasonable first step in a case of really bad postinfectious cough,” he told this news organization. “But in general, drug treatments are not indicated.”
 

Environmental Concerns

Yet some things should raise clinicians’ suspicion of more complex issues.

“A pattern of recurrent colds or bronchitis with protracted coughing afterward raises strong suspicion for asthma, which can present as repeated, prolonged respiratory exacerbations,” he said. “Unless asthma is treated with appropriate inhaler therapy on a regular basis, it will unlikely come under control.”

Dr. Vozoris added that the environmental concerns over the use of metered dose inhalers (MDIs) are minimal compared with the other sources of pollution and the risks for undertreatment. “The authors are overplaying the environmental impact of MDI, in my opinion,” he said. “Physicians already have to deal with the challenging issue of suboptimal patient adherence to inhalers, and I fear that such comments may further drive that up. Furthermore, there is also an environmental footprint with not using inhalers, as patients can then experience suboptimally controlled lung disease as a result — and then present to the ER and get admitted to hospital for exacerbations of disease, where more resources and medications are used up.”

“In addition, in patients who are immunocompromised, protracted coughing after what was thought to be a cold may be associated with an “atypical” respiratory infection, such as tuberculosis, that will require special medical treatment,” Dr. Vozoris concluded.

No funding for the review of postinfectious cough was reported. Dr. Liang and Dr. Vozoris disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Satia reported receiving funding from the ERS Respire 3 Fellowship Award, BMA James Trust Award, North-West Lung Centre Charity (Manchester), NIHR CRF Manchester, Merck MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK. Dr. Satia also has received consulting fees from Merck MSD, Genentech, and Respiplus; as well as speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Merck MSD, Sanofi-Regeneron. Satia has served on the following task force committees: Chronic Cough (ERS), Asthma Diagnosis and Management (ERS), NEUROCOUGH (ERS CRC), and the CTS Chronic Cough working group.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lingering postinfectious cough has been a concern across Canada this winter. Patients with this symptom (defined as a subacute cough, with symptoms lasting between 3 and 8 weeks after the infection) have many questions when they come to the clinic. But there is no evidence supporting pharmacologic treatment for postinfectious cough, according to an overview published on February 12 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal

“It’s something a lot of patients are worried about: That lingering cough after a common cold or flu,” lead author Kevin Liang, MD, of the Department of Family Medicine at The University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. He added that some studies show that as much as a quarter of adult patients have this complaint.

Dr. Liang and his colleagues emphasized that the diagnosis of postinfectious cough is one of exclusion. It relies on the absence of concerning physical examination findings and other “subacute cough mimics” such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), gastroesophageal reflux disease, or use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

“Pertussis should be considered in patients with a paroxysmal cough, post-tussive vomiting, and inspiratory whoop,” they added. Coughs that persist beyond 8 weeks warrant further workup such as a pulmonary function test to rule out asthma or COPD. Coughs accompanied by hemoptysis, systemic symptoms, dysphagia, excessive dyspnea, or hoarseness also warrant further workup, they added. And patients with a history of smoking or recurrent pneumonia should be followed more closely.

In the absence of red flags, Dr. Liang and coauthors advised that there is no evidence supporting pharmacologic treatment, “which is associated with harms,” such as medication adverse effects, cost, strain on the medical supply chain, and the fact that pressurized metered-dose inhalers emit powerful greenhouse gases. “A lot of patients come in looking for solutions, but really, all the evidence says the over-the-counter cough syrup just doesn’t work. Or I see clinicians prescribing inhalers or different medication that can cost hundreds of dollars, and their efficacy, at least from the literature, shows that there’s really no improvement. Time and patience are the two keys to solving this,” Dr. Liang told this news organization.

Moreover, there is a distinct absence of guidelines on this topic. The College of Family Physicians of Canada’s recent literature review cited limited data supporting a trial of inhaled corticosteroids, a bronchodilator such as ipratropium-salbutamol, or an intranasal steroid if postnasal drip is suspected. However, “there’s a high risk of bias in the study they cite from using the short-acting bronchodilators, and what it ultimately says is that in most cases, this is self-resolving by around the 20-day mark,” said Dr. Liang. “Our advice is just to err on the side of caution and just provide that information piece to the patient.”
 

‘Significant Nuance’

Imran Satia, MD, assistant professor of respirology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, agreed that “most people who get a viral or bacterial upper or lower respiratory tract infection will get better with time, and there is very little evidence that giving steroids, antibiotics, or cough suppressants is better than waiting it out.” There is “significant nuance” in how to manage this situation, however.

“In some patients with underlying lung disease like asthma or COPD, increasing the frequency of regular inhaled steroids, bronchodilators, oral steroids, antibiotics, and chest imaging with breathing tests may be clinically warranted, and many physicians will do this,” he told this news organization. “In some patients with refractory chronic cough, there is no underlying identifiable disease, despite completing the necessary investigations. Or coughing persists despite trials of treatment for lung diseases, nasal diseases, and stomach reflux disease. This is commonly described as cough hypersensitivity syndrome, for which therapies targeting the neuronal pathways that control coughing are needed.”

Physicians should occasionally consider trying a temporary course of a short-acting bronchodilator inhaler, said Nicholas Vozoris, MD, assistant professor and clinician investigator in respirology at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. “I think that would be a reasonable first step in a case of really bad postinfectious cough,” he told this news organization. “But in general, drug treatments are not indicated.”
 

Environmental Concerns

Yet some things should raise clinicians’ suspicion of more complex issues.

“A pattern of recurrent colds or bronchitis with protracted coughing afterward raises strong suspicion for asthma, which can present as repeated, prolonged respiratory exacerbations,” he said. “Unless asthma is treated with appropriate inhaler therapy on a regular basis, it will unlikely come under control.”

Dr. Vozoris added that the environmental concerns over the use of metered dose inhalers (MDIs) are minimal compared with the other sources of pollution and the risks for undertreatment. “The authors are overplaying the environmental impact of MDI, in my opinion,” he said. “Physicians already have to deal with the challenging issue of suboptimal patient adherence to inhalers, and I fear that such comments may further drive that up. Furthermore, there is also an environmental footprint with not using inhalers, as patients can then experience suboptimally controlled lung disease as a result — and then present to the ER and get admitted to hospital for exacerbations of disease, where more resources and medications are used up.”

“In addition, in patients who are immunocompromised, protracted coughing after what was thought to be a cold may be associated with an “atypical” respiratory infection, such as tuberculosis, that will require special medical treatment,” Dr. Vozoris concluded.

No funding for the review of postinfectious cough was reported. Dr. Liang and Dr. Vozoris disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Satia reported receiving funding from the ERS Respire 3 Fellowship Award, BMA James Trust Award, North-West Lung Centre Charity (Manchester), NIHR CRF Manchester, Merck MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK. Dr. Satia also has received consulting fees from Merck MSD, Genentech, and Respiplus; as well as speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Merck MSD, Sanofi-Regeneron. Satia has served on the following task force committees: Chronic Cough (ERS), Asthma Diagnosis and Management (ERS), NEUROCOUGH (ERS CRC), and the CTS Chronic Cough working group.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On February 14, Dermavant Sciences announced that the company had submitted a supplemental New Drug Application (sNDA) to the Food and Drug Administration for tapinarof cream, 1%, for treating atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and children 2 years of age and older.

Tapinarof cream, 1%, is an aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist marketed under the brand name VTAMA that was approved in 2022 for treating plaque psoriasis in adults.

According to a Dermavant press release, the sNDA is based on positive data from the phase 3 ADORING 1 and ADORING 2 pivotal trials and interim results from the phase 3 ADORING 3 open-label, long-term extension 48-week trial. In ADORING 1 and ADORING 2, tapinarof cream demonstrated statistically significant improvements in the primary endpoint of Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) treatment success, defined as a vIGA-AD score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) with at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline; demonstrated treatment success over vehicle at week 8; and met all key secondary endpoints with statistical significance, according to the company.

The most common adverse reactions in patients treated with VTAMA cream include folliculitis, nasopharyngitis, contact dermatitis, headache, and pruritus.

On February 14, Dermavant Sciences announced that the company had submitted a supplemental New Drug Application (sNDA) to the Food and Drug Administration for tapinarof cream, 1%, for treating atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and children 2 years of age and older.

Tapinarof cream, 1%, is an aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist marketed under the brand name VTAMA that was approved in 2022 for treating plaque psoriasis in adults.

According to a Dermavant press release, the sNDA is based on positive data from the phase 3 ADORING 1 and ADORING 2 pivotal trials and interim results from the phase 3 ADORING 3 open-label, long-term extension 48-week trial. In ADORING 1 and ADORING 2, tapinarof cream demonstrated statistically significant improvements in the primary endpoint of Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) treatment success, defined as a vIGA-AD score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) with at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline; demonstrated treatment success over vehicle at week 8; and met all key secondary endpoints with statistical significance, according to the company.

The most common adverse reactions in patients treated with VTAMA cream include folliculitis, nasopharyngitis, contact dermatitis, headache, and pruritus.

On February 14, Dermavant Sciences announced that the company had submitted a supplemental New Drug Application (sNDA) to the Food and Drug Administration for tapinarof cream, 1%, for treating atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and children 2 years of age and older.

Tapinarof cream, 1%, is an aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist marketed under the brand name VTAMA that was approved in 2022 for treating plaque psoriasis in adults.

According to a Dermavant press release, the sNDA is based on positive data from the phase 3 ADORING 1 and ADORING 2 pivotal trials and interim results from the phase 3 ADORING 3 open-label, long-term extension 48-week trial. In ADORING 1 and ADORING 2, tapinarof cream demonstrated statistically significant improvements in the primary endpoint of Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) treatment success, defined as a vIGA-AD score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) with at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline; demonstrated treatment success over vehicle at week 8; and met all key secondary endpoints with statistical significance, according to the company.

The most common adverse reactions in patients treated with VTAMA cream include folliculitis, nasopharyngitis, contact dermatitis, headache, and pruritus.

I recently wrote about a fledgling program here in Maine in which some emergency room physicians were being outfitted with equipment and communications gear that would allow them to respond on the fly to emergencies in the field when they weren’t working in the hospital. I questioned the rationale of using in-house personnel, already in short supply, for the few situations in which trained EMT personnel would usually be called. At the same time, I promised to return to the broader subject of the role of physicians as first responders in a future letter. And, here it is.

Have you ever been on a plane or at a large public gathering and the public addressed system crackled, “Is there a doctor on board” or in the audience? Or have you been on the highway and come upon a fresh accident in which it appears that there may have been injuries? Or at a youth soccer game in which a player has been injured and is still on the ground?

How do you usually respond in situations like this? Do you immediately identify yourself as a physician? Or, do you routinely shy away from involvement? What thoughts run through your head?

Do you feel your training and experience with emergencies is so outdated that you doubt you could be of any assistance? Has your practice become so specialized that you aren’t comfortable with anything outside of your specialty? Maybe getting involved is likely to throw your already tight travel schedule into disarray? Or are you afraid that should something go wrong while you were helping out you could be sued?

Keeping in mind that I am a retired septuagenarian pediatrician more than a decade removed from active practice, I would describe my usual response to these situations as “attentive hovering.” I position myself to have a good view of the victim and watch to see if there are any other responders. Either because of their personality or their experience, often there is someone who steps forward to help. Trained EMTs seem to have no hesitancy going into action. If I sense things aren’t going well, or the victim is a child, I will identify myself as a retired pediatrician and offer my assistance. Even if the response given by others seems appropriate, I may still eventually identify myself, maybe to lend an air of legitimacy to the process.

What are the roots of my hesitancy? I have found that I generally have little to add when there is a trained first responder on hand. They have been-there-and-done-that far more recently than I have. They know how to stabilize potential or obvious fractures. They know how to position the victim for transport. Even when I am in an environment where my medical background is already known, I yield to the more recently experienced first responders.

I don’t particularly worry about being sued. Every state has Good Samaritan laws. Although the laws vary from state to state, here in Maine I feel comfortable with the good sense of my fellow citizens. I understand if you live or practice in a more litigious environment you may be more concerned. On an airplane there is the Aviation Medical Assistant Act, which became law in 1998, and provides us with some extra protection.

What if there is a situation in which even with my outdated skills I seem to be the only show in town? Fortunately, that situation hasn’t occurred for me in quite a few years, but the odds are that one might occur. In almost 1 out of 600 airline flights, there is an inflight emergency. I tend to hang out with other septuagenarians and octogenarians doing active things. And I frequent youth athletic events where there is unlikely to be a first responder assigned to the event.

Should I be doing more to update my skills? It’s been a while since I refreshed by CPR techniques. I can’t recall the last time I handled a defibrillator. Should I be learning more about exsanguination prevention techniques?

Every so often there are some rumblings to mandate that all physicians should be required to update these first responder skills to maintain their license or certification. That wouldn’t cover those of us who are retired or who no longer practice medicine. And, I’m not sure we need to add another layer to the system. I think there are enough of us out there who would like to add ourselves to the first responder population, maybe not as fully trained experts but as folks who would like to be more ready to help by updating old or seldom-used skills.

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].

I recently wrote about a fledgling program here in Maine in which some emergency room physicians were being outfitted with equipment and communications gear that would allow them to respond on the fly to emergencies in the field when they weren’t working in the hospital. I questioned the rationale of using in-house personnel, already in short supply, for the few situations in which trained EMT personnel would usually be called. At the same time, I promised to return to the broader subject of the role of physicians as first responders in a future letter. And, here it is.

Have you ever been on a plane or at a large public gathering and the public addressed system crackled, “Is there a doctor on board” or in the audience? Or have you been on the highway and come upon a fresh accident in which it appears that there may have been injuries? Or at a youth soccer game in which a player has been injured and is still on the ground?

How do you usually respond in situations like this? Do you immediately identify yourself as a physician? Or, do you routinely shy away from involvement? What thoughts run through your head?

Do you feel your training and experience with emergencies is so outdated that you doubt you could be of any assistance? Has your practice become so specialized that you aren’t comfortable with anything outside of your specialty? Maybe getting involved is likely to throw your already tight travel schedule into disarray? Or are you afraid that should something go wrong while you were helping out you could be sued?

Keeping in mind that I am a retired septuagenarian pediatrician more than a decade removed from active practice, I would describe my usual response to these situations as “attentive hovering.” I position myself to have a good view of the victim and watch to see if there are any other responders. Either because of their personality or their experience, often there is someone who steps forward to help. Trained EMTs seem to have no hesitancy going into action. If I sense things aren’t going well, or the victim is a child, I will identify myself as a retired pediatrician and offer my assistance. Even if the response given by others seems appropriate, I may still eventually identify myself, maybe to lend an air of legitimacy to the process.

What are the roots of my hesitancy? I have found that I generally have little to add when there is a trained first responder on hand. They have been-there-and-done-that far more recently than I have. They know how to stabilize potential or obvious fractures. They know how to position the victim for transport. Even when I am in an environment where my medical background is already known, I yield to the more recently experienced first responders.

I don’t particularly worry about being sued. Every state has Good Samaritan laws. Although the laws vary from state to state, here in Maine I feel comfortable with the good sense of my fellow citizens. I understand if you live or practice in a more litigious environment you may be more concerned. On an airplane there is the Aviation Medical Assistant Act, which became law in 1998, and provides us with some extra protection.

What if there is a situation in which even with my outdated skills I seem to be the only show in town? Fortunately, that situation hasn’t occurred for me in quite a few years, but the odds are that one might occur. In almost 1 out of 600 airline flights, there is an inflight emergency. I tend to hang out with other septuagenarians and octogenarians doing active things. And I frequent youth athletic events where there is unlikely to be a first responder assigned to the event.

Should I be doing more to update my skills? It’s been a while since I refreshed by CPR techniques. I can’t recall the last time I handled a defibrillator. Should I be learning more about exsanguination prevention techniques?

Every so often there are some rumblings to mandate that all physicians should be required to update these first responder skills to maintain their license or certification. That wouldn’t cover those of us who are retired or who no longer practice medicine. And, I’m not sure we need to add another layer to the system. I think there are enough of us out there who would like to add ourselves to the first responder population, maybe not as fully trained experts but as folks who would like to be more ready to help by updating old or seldom-used skills.

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].

I recently wrote about a fledgling program here in Maine in which some emergency room physicians were being outfitted with equipment and communications gear that would allow them to respond on the fly to emergencies in the field when they weren’t working in the hospital. I questioned the rationale of using in-house personnel, already in short supply, for the few situations in which trained EMT personnel would usually be called. At the same time, I promised to return to the broader subject of the role of physicians as first responders in a future letter. And, here it is.

Have you ever been on a plane or at a large public gathering and the public addressed system crackled, “Is there a doctor on board” or in the audience? Or have you been on the highway and come upon a fresh accident in which it appears that there may have been injuries? Or at a youth soccer game in which a player has been injured and is still on the ground?

How do you usually respond in situations like this? Do you immediately identify yourself as a physician? Or, do you routinely shy away from involvement? What thoughts run through your head?

Do you feel your training and experience with emergencies is so outdated that you doubt you could be of any assistance? Has your practice become so specialized that you aren’t comfortable with anything outside of your specialty? Maybe getting involved is likely to throw your already tight travel schedule into disarray? Or are you afraid that should something go wrong while you were helping out you could be sued?

Keeping in mind that I am a retired septuagenarian pediatrician more than a decade removed from active practice, I would describe my usual response to these situations as “attentive hovering.” I position myself to have a good view of the victim and watch to see if there are any other responders. Either because of their personality or their experience, often there is someone who steps forward to help. Trained EMTs seem to have no hesitancy going into action. If I sense things aren’t going well, or the victim is a child, I will identify myself as a retired pediatrician and offer my assistance. Even if the response given by others seems appropriate, I may still eventually identify myself, maybe to lend an air of legitimacy to the process.

What are the roots of my hesitancy? I have found that I generally have little to add when there is a trained first responder on hand. They have been-there-and-done-that far more recently than I have. They know how to stabilize potential or obvious fractures. They know how to position the victim for transport. Even when I am in an environment where my medical background is already known, I yield to the more recently experienced first responders.

I don’t particularly worry about being sued. Every state has Good Samaritan laws. Although the laws vary from state to state, here in Maine I feel comfortable with the good sense of my fellow citizens. I understand if you live or practice in a more litigious environment you may be more concerned. On an airplane there is the Aviation Medical Assistant Act, which became law in 1998, and provides us with some extra protection.

What if there is a situation in which even with my outdated skills I seem to be the only show in town? Fortunately, that situation hasn’t occurred for me in quite a few years, but the odds are that one might occur. In almost 1 out of 600 airline flights, there is an inflight emergency. I tend to hang out with other septuagenarians and octogenarians doing active things. And I frequent youth athletic events where there is unlikely to be a first responder assigned to the event.

Should I be doing more to update my skills? It’s been a while since I refreshed by CPR techniques. I can’t recall the last time I handled a defibrillator. Should I be learning more about exsanguination prevention techniques?

Every so often there are some rumblings to mandate that all physicians should be required to update these first responder skills to maintain their license or certification. That wouldn’t cover those of us who are retired or who no longer practice medicine. And, I’m not sure we need to add another layer to the system. I think there are enough of us out there who would like to add ourselves to the first responder population, maybe not as fully trained experts but as folks who would like to be more ready to help by updating old or seldom-used skills.

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].