MDedge Pediatrics

When pediatric patients with epilepsy shift to adult care, inherent challenges are complicated by a near-total lack of efforts to smooth the transition, according to a recent survey. Many respondents received little to no information regarding the process, and many adults were still receiving care from family physicians or pediatric neurologists. The study was published online in Epilepsy & Behavior.

Room for Improvement

“We are not doing as good a job with planning for transition as we should,” said Elaine C. Wirrell, MD, who was not involved with the study. “It is not just a simple issue of sending your patient to an adult neurologist. Transition is a process that happens over time, so we need to do a better job getting our families ready for moving on to an adult provider.” Dr. Wirrell is director of pediatric epilepsy and professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Mayo Clinic

Clumsy Transitions

Investigators distributed a 25-question survey to patients and caregivers who attended the 2019 Epilepsy Awareness Day at Disneyland, and through online support groups in North America. Among 58 responses, 32 came from patients between ages 12 and 17 years or their caregivers.

Despite attempts to recruit a diverse cross-section of respondents, most patients had severe epilepsy and comorbidities: 43% had daily or weekly seizures; 45% were on three or more antiseizure medications; and 74% had intellectual disabilities.

Many children with early-life epilepsies suffer from developmental and epileptic encephalopathy, which has associated non-seizure symptoms including learning challenges, behavioral issues, and other medical concerns, Dr. Wirrell said. Therefore, she said, finding a neurologist who treats adults — and has the expertise and interest to care for such patients — can be difficult.

“We’re seeing many patients not making that transition, or maybe not making it appropriately, so they’re not necessarily getting to the providers who have the most expertise in managing their epilepsy.” Among adults surveyed, 27% were still being followed by pediatric neurologists, and 35% were visiting family doctors for epilepsy-related treatment.

Because the needs of children with complex epilepsy can extend well beyond neurology, Dr. Wirrell added, managing such cases often requires multidisciplinary pediatric teams. “Finding that team on the adult side is more challenging.” As a result, she said, patients may transfer their neurology care without getting additional support for comorbidities such as mood disorders and learning disabilities.

The foregoing challenges are complicated by the fact that pediatric neurologists often lack the time (and in the United States, reimbursement) to adequately address the transition process, said Dr. Wirrell. Providers in freestanding children’s hospitals may face additional challenges coordinating with adult-care providers outside their facilities, she said.

“There’s also potentially a reluctance of both families and physicians to transition the patient on, because there’s concern that maybe there isn’t anybody on the adult side who is able to do as good a job as what they have on the pediatric side.”
 

Well-Coordinated Transitions Should Have No Surprises

Transition should be a planned, independence-promoting process that results in smooth, well-coordinated movement of pediatric patients into adult care — one without surprises or disconnections, the authors wrote. However, 55% of respondents never heard the term “transition” from any provider, even though 69% of patients were being treated in academic specialty centers.

Among 12- to 17-year-olds, 72% had never discussed transition with their healthcare team. That figure includes no 17-year-olds. Approximately 90% of respondents said they received sufficient time during healthcare visits, but 54% reported feeling stressed when moving from pediatric to adult care.

Given resource constraints in many pediatric epilepsy programs, the study authors recommended patient-empowerment tools such as a transition toolkit to help patients and families navigate the transition process even in places without formal transition programs.

“Many of these children are coming over with boatloads of medical records,” Dr. Wirrell said. “It’s not fair to the adult provider, who then has to go through all those records.” Instead, she said, pediatric teams should provide succinct summaries of relevant test results, medication side effects, prior treatments tried, and the like. “Those summaries are critically important so that we can get information to the person who needs it.”

Although successful transition requires significant coordination, she added, much of the process can often be handled by nonphysicians. “There are some very good nurse-led transition programs. Often, we can have a nurse providing education to the family and even potentially having a joint visit with an adult epilepsy nurse for complex patients.”

Pediatric providers also must know when to begin the transition process, Dr. Wirrell said. As soon as patients are 13 or 14 years old, she suggested discussing the process with them and their families every 6 to 12 months, covering specifics ranging from how to order medications to why adult patients may need power of attorney designees.

On a broader scale, said Dr. Wirrell, a smooth handoff requires planning. Fortunately, she said, the topic is becoming a significant priority for a growing number of children’s hospitals specific not only to epilepsy, but also to other chronic illnesses.

Dr. Wirrell is co–editor-in-chief for epilepsy.com. She reports no relevant financial interests.

When pediatric patients with epilepsy shift to adult care, inherent challenges are complicated by a near-total lack of efforts to smooth the transition, according to a recent survey. Many respondents received little to no information regarding the process, and many adults were still receiving care from family physicians or pediatric neurologists. The study was published online in Epilepsy & Behavior.

Room for Improvement

“We are not doing as good a job with planning for transition as we should,” said Elaine C. Wirrell, MD, who was not involved with the study. “It is not just a simple issue of sending your patient to an adult neurologist. Transition is a process that happens over time, so we need to do a better job getting our families ready for moving on to an adult provider.” Dr. Wirrell is director of pediatric epilepsy and professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Mayo Clinic

Clumsy Transitions

Investigators distributed a 25-question survey to patients and caregivers who attended the 2019 Epilepsy Awareness Day at Disneyland, and through online support groups in North America. Among 58 responses, 32 came from patients between ages 12 and 17 years or their caregivers.

Despite attempts to recruit a diverse cross-section of respondents, most patients had severe epilepsy and comorbidities: 43% had daily or weekly seizures; 45% were on three or more antiseizure medications; and 74% had intellectual disabilities.

Many children with early-life epilepsies suffer from developmental and epileptic encephalopathy, which has associated non-seizure symptoms including learning challenges, behavioral issues, and other medical concerns, Dr. Wirrell said. Therefore, she said, finding a neurologist who treats adults — and has the expertise and interest to care for such patients — can be difficult.

“We’re seeing many patients not making that transition, or maybe not making it appropriately, so they’re not necessarily getting to the providers who have the most expertise in managing their epilepsy.” Among adults surveyed, 27% were still being followed by pediatric neurologists, and 35% were visiting family doctors for epilepsy-related treatment.

Because the needs of children with complex epilepsy can extend well beyond neurology, Dr. Wirrell added, managing such cases often requires multidisciplinary pediatric teams. “Finding that team on the adult side is more challenging.” As a result, she said, patients may transfer their neurology care without getting additional support for comorbidities such as mood disorders and learning disabilities.

The foregoing challenges are complicated by the fact that pediatric neurologists often lack the time (and in the United States, reimbursement) to adequately address the transition process, said Dr. Wirrell. Providers in freestanding children’s hospitals may face additional challenges coordinating with adult-care providers outside their facilities, she said.

“There’s also potentially a reluctance of both families and physicians to transition the patient on, because there’s concern that maybe there isn’t anybody on the adult side who is able to do as good a job as what they have on the pediatric side.”
 

Well-Coordinated Transitions Should Have No Surprises

Transition should be a planned, independence-promoting process that results in smooth, well-coordinated movement of pediatric patients into adult care — one without surprises or disconnections, the authors wrote. However, 55% of respondents never heard the term “transition” from any provider, even though 69% of patients were being treated in academic specialty centers.

Among 12- to 17-year-olds, 72% had never discussed transition with their healthcare team. That figure includes no 17-year-olds. Approximately 90% of respondents said they received sufficient time during healthcare visits, but 54% reported feeling stressed when moving from pediatric to adult care.

Given resource constraints in many pediatric epilepsy programs, the study authors recommended patient-empowerment tools such as a transition toolkit to help patients and families navigate the transition process even in places without formal transition programs.

“Many of these children are coming over with boatloads of medical records,” Dr. Wirrell said. “It’s not fair to the adult provider, who then has to go through all those records.” Instead, she said, pediatric teams should provide succinct summaries of relevant test results, medication side effects, prior treatments tried, and the like. “Those summaries are critically important so that we can get information to the person who needs it.”

Although successful transition requires significant coordination, she added, much of the process can often be handled by nonphysicians. “There are some very good nurse-led transition programs. Often, we can have a nurse providing education to the family and even potentially having a joint visit with an adult epilepsy nurse for complex patients.”

Pediatric providers also must know when to begin the transition process, Dr. Wirrell said. As soon as patients are 13 or 14 years old, she suggested discussing the process with them and their families every 6 to 12 months, covering specifics ranging from how to order medications to why adult patients may need power of attorney designees.

On a broader scale, said Dr. Wirrell, a smooth handoff requires planning. Fortunately, she said, the topic is becoming a significant priority for a growing number of children’s hospitals specific not only to epilepsy, but also to other chronic illnesses.

Dr. Wirrell is co–editor-in-chief for epilepsy.com. She reports no relevant financial interests.

When pediatric patients with epilepsy shift to adult care, inherent challenges are complicated by a near-total lack of efforts to smooth the transition, according to a recent survey. Many respondents received little to no information regarding the process, and many adults were still receiving care from family physicians or pediatric neurologists. The study was published online in Epilepsy & Behavior.

Room for Improvement

“We are not doing as good a job with planning for transition as we should,” said Elaine C. Wirrell, MD, who was not involved with the study. “It is not just a simple issue of sending your patient to an adult neurologist. Transition is a process that happens over time, so we need to do a better job getting our families ready for moving on to an adult provider.” Dr. Wirrell is director of pediatric epilepsy and professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Mayo Clinic

Clumsy Transitions

Investigators distributed a 25-question survey to patients and caregivers who attended the 2019 Epilepsy Awareness Day at Disneyland, and through online support groups in North America. Among 58 responses, 32 came from patients between ages 12 and 17 years or their caregivers.

Despite attempts to recruit a diverse cross-section of respondents, most patients had severe epilepsy and comorbidities: 43% had daily or weekly seizures; 45% were on three or more antiseizure medications; and 74% had intellectual disabilities.

Many children with early-life epilepsies suffer from developmental and epileptic encephalopathy, which has associated non-seizure symptoms including learning challenges, behavioral issues, and other medical concerns, Dr. Wirrell said. Therefore, she said, finding a neurologist who treats adults — and has the expertise and interest to care for such patients — can be difficult.

“We’re seeing many patients not making that transition, or maybe not making it appropriately, so they’re not necessarily getting to the providers who have the most expertise in managing their epilepsy.” Among adults surveyed, 27% were still being followed by pediatric neurologists, and 35% were visiting family doctors for epilepsy-related treatment.

Because the needs of children with complex epilepsy can extend well beyond neurology, Dr. Wirrell added, managing such cases often requires multidisciplinary pediatric teams. “Finding that team on the adult side is more challenging.” As a result, she said, patients may transfer their neurology care without getting additional support for comorbidities such as mood disorders and learning disabilities.

The foregoing challenges are complicated by the fact that pediatric neurologists often lack the time (and in the United States, reimbursement) to adequately address the transition process, said Dr. Wirrell. Providers in freestanding children’s hospitals may face additional challenges coordinating with adult-care providers outside their facilities, she said.

“There’s also potentially a reluctance of both families and physicians to transition the patient on, because there’s concern that maybe there isn’t anybody on the adult side who is able to do as good a job as what they have on the pediatric side.”
 

Well-Coordinated Transitions Should Have No Surprises

Transition should be a planned, independence-promoting process that results in smooth, well-coordinated movement of pediatric patients into adult care — one without surprises or disconnections, the authors wrote. However, 55% of respondents never heard the term “transition” from any provider, even though 69% of patients were being treated in academic specialty centers.

Among 12- to 17-year-olds, 72% had never discussed transition with their healthcare team. That figure includes no 17-year-olds. Approximately 90% of respondents said they received sufficient time during healthcare visits, but 54% reported feeling stressed when moving from pediatric to adult care.

Given resource constraints in many pediatric epilepsy programs, the study authors recommended patient-empowerment tools such as a transition toolkit to help patients and families navigate the transition process even in places without formal transition programs.

“Many of these children are coming over with boatloads of medical records,” Dr. Wirrell said. “It’s not fair to the adult provider, who then has to go through all those records.” Instead, she said, pediatric teams should provide succinct summaries of relevant test results, medication side effects, prior treatments tried, and the like. “Those summaries are critically important so that we can get information to the person who needs it.”

Although successful transition requires significant coordination, she added, much of the process can often be handled by nonphysicians. “There are some very good nurse-led transition programs. Often, we can have a nurse providing education to the family and even potentially having a joint visit with an adult epilepsy nurse for complex patients.”

Pediatric providers also must know when to begin the transition process, Dr. Wirrell said. As soon as patients are 13 or 14 years old, she suggested discussing the process with them and their families every 6 to 12 months, covering specifics ranging from how to order medications to why adult patients may need power of attorney designees.

On a broader scale, said Dr. Wirrell, a smooth handoff requires planning. Fortunately, she said, the topic is becoming a significant priority for a growing number of children’s hospitals specific not only to epilepsy, but also to other chronic illnesses.

Dr. Wirrell is co–editor-in-chief for epilepsy.com. She reports no relevant financial interests.

A recently published prospective study in JAMA Network Open identified a significant association between children’s bone health and their proximity to green areas.

The literature emphasized the benefits of childhood exposure to green spaces for neurocognitive, social, behavioral, and mental development, as well as well-being. In addition, such exposure is linked to lower body mass index, increased physical activity, and reduced risks for overweight, obesity, and hypertension. However, specific data on bone mineral density implications are limited.

To address this gap, Hanne Sleurs, PhD, a researcher at the Universiteit Hasselt in Belgium, and colleagues followed the bone health of 327 participants from birth to 4-6 years and examined correlations with individuals’ exposure to green areas. Data collection occurred from October 2014 to July 2021.

Green spaces were categorized as high (vegetation height > 3 m), low (vegetation height ≤ 3 m), and mixed (combination of both). The distances of green spaces from participants’ residences ranged from a radius of 100 m to 3 km. Radial bone mineral density assessment was conducted using quantitative ultrasound during follow-up consultations.

The scientists found that participants frequently exposed to high and mixed vegetation areas within a 500-m radius of their homes had significantly higher bone mineral density than those at other distances or those frequenting spaces with different vegetation. In addition, access to larger green spaces with mixed and high vegetation within a 1-km radius was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of low bone density in children.

“These findings illustrate the positive impact on bone health of early childhood exposure to green areas near their homes during critical growth and development periods, with long-term implications,” wrote the researchers.

The results aligned with those of a prior study in which authors noted factors contributing to families’ frequent park visits, including shorter distances, safety, and park organization, as well as the natural diversity and activities offered.

One hypothesis explaining improved bone density in children visiting green areas was increased physical activity practiced in these locations. The mechanical load from exercise can activate signaling pathways favoring bone development. Literature also gathered data on the influence of green areas on young populations engaging in physical activities, showing positive outcomes.

According to the study authors, the findings are crucial for public health because they emphasize the need for urban investments in accessible green spaces as a strategy for fracture and osteoporosis prevention. In the long term, such initiatives translate to reduced public health expenses, along with physical and emotional gains in communities adopting environmental strategies, they concluded.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recently published prospective study in JAMA Network Open identified a significant association between children’s bone health and their proximity to green areas.

The literature emphasized the benefits of childhood exposure to green spaces for neurocognitive, social, behavioral, and mental development, as well as well-being. In addition, such exposure is linked to lower body mass index, increased physical activity, and reduced risks for overweight, obesity, and hypertension. However, specific data on bone mineral density implications are limited.

To address this gap, Hanne Sleurs, PhD, a researcher at the Universiteit Hasselt in Belgium, and colleagues followed the bone health of 327 participants from birth to 4-6 years and examined correlations with individuals’ exposure to green areas. Data collection occurred from October 2014 to July 2021.

Green spaces were categorized as high (vegetation height > 3 m), low (vegetation height ≤ 3 m), and mixed (combination of both). The distances of green spaces from participants’ residences ranged from a radius of 100 m to 3 km. Radial bone mineral density assessment was conducted using quantitative ultrasound during follow-up consultations.

The scientists found that participants frequently exposed to high and mixed vegetation areas within a 500-m radius of their homes had significantly higher bone mineral density than those at other distances or those frequenting spaces with different vegetation. In addition, access to larger green spaces with mixed and high vegetation within a 1-km radius was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of low bone density in children.

“These findings illustrate the positive impact on bone health of early childhood exposure to green areas near their homes during critical growth and development periods, with long-term implications,” wrote the researchers.

The results aligned with those of a prior study in which authors noted factors contributing to families’ frequent park visits, including shorter distances, safety, and park organization, as well as the natural diversity and activities offered.

One hypothesis explaining improved bone density in children visiting green areas was increased physical activity practiced in these locations. The mechanical load from exercise can activate signaling pathways favoring bone development. Literature also gathered data on the influence of green areas on young populations engaging in physical activities, showing positive outcomes.

According to the study authors, the findings are crucial for public health because they emphasize the need for urban investments in accessible green spaces as a strategy for fracture and osteoporosis prevention. In the long term, such initiatives translate to reduced public health expenses, along with physical and emotional gains in communities adopting environmental strategies, they concluded.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recently published prospective study in JAMA Network Open identified a significant association between children’s bone health and their proximity to green areas.

The literature emphasized the benefits of childhood exposure to green spaces for neurocognitive, social, behavioral, and mental development, as well as well-being. In addition, such exposure is linked to lower body mass index, increased physical activity, and reduced risks for overweight, obesity, and hypertension. However, specific data on bone mineral density implications are limited.

To address this gap, Hanne Sleurs, PhD, a researcher at the Universiteit Hasselt in Belgium, and colleagues followed the bone health of 327 participants from birth to 4-6 years and examined correlations with individuals’ exposure to green areas. Data collection occurred from October 2014 to July 2021.

Green spaces were categorized as high (vegetation height > 3 m), low (vegetation height ≤ 3 m), and mixed (combination of both). The distances of green spaces from participants’ residences ranged from a radius of 100 m to 3 km. Radial bone mineral density assessment was conducted using quantitative ultrasound during follow-up consultations.

The scientists found that participants frequently exposed to high and mixed vegetation areas within a 500-m radius of their homes had significantly higher bone mineral density than those at other distances or those frequenting spaces with different vegetation. In addition, access to larger green spaces with mixed and high vegetation within a 1-km radius was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of low bone density in children.

“These findings illustrate the positive impact on bone health of early childhood exposure to green areas near their homes during critical growth and development periods, with long-term implications,” wrote the researchers.

The results aligned with those of a prior study in which authors noted factors contributing to families’ frequent park visits, including shorter distances, safety, and park organization, as well as the natural diversity and activities offered.

One hypothesis explaining improved bone density in children visiting green areas was increased physical activity practiced in these locations. The mechanical load from exercise can activate signaling pathways favoring bone development. Literature also gathered data on the influence of green areas on young populations engaging in physical activities, showing positive outcomes.

According to the study authors, the findings are crucial for public health because they emphasize the need for urban investments in accessible green spaces as a strategy for fracture and osteoporosis prevention. In the long term, such initiatives translate to reduced public health expenses, along with physical and emotional gains in communities adopting environmental strategies, they concluded.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Some Robitussin cough syrup products are being recalled nationwide due to potentially deadly microbial contamination. 

The company that makes Robitussin syrups did not specify which microorganisms may be in the products. The recall announcement from the global consumer health products company Haleon stated that the contamination could lead to fungal infections or the presence of fungi or yeasts in a person’s blood. So far, the company has not received any reports of people being sickened by the recalled products.

The recall applies to bottles of Robitussin Honey CF Max Day and Robitussin Honey CF Max Nighttime. Both varieties are for adults. Affected products were sold nationwide and have specific lot numbers printed at the bottom of the back of the bottles. Consumers can view the lot numbers on the FDA’s recall webpage.

People with weakened immune systems have a higher risk of life-threatening health problems due to the cough syrup, the company warned.

“In non-immunocompromised consumers, the population most likely to use the product, life-threatening infections are not likely to occur,” the recall notice from Haleon stated. “However, the occurrence of an infection that may necessitate medical intervention cannot be completely ruled out.”

People who have affected products should stop using them immediately. The company asked that anyone with the products email Haleon at [email protected], or call the company at 800-245-1040 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern time. 
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Some Robitussin cough syrup products are being recalled nationwide due to potentially deadly microbial contamination. 

The company that makes Robitussin syrups did not specify which microorganisms may be in the products. The recall announcement from the global consumer health products company Haleon stated that the contamination could lead to fungal infections or the presence of fungi or yeasts in a person’s blood. So far, the company has not received any reports of people being sickened by the recalled products.

The recall applies to bottles of Robitussin Honey CF Max Day and Robitussin Honey CF Max Nighttime. Both varieties are for adults. Affected products were sold nationwide and have specific lot numbers printed at the bottom of the back of the bottles. Consumers can view the lot numbers on the FDA’s recall webpage.

People with weakened immune systems have a higher risk of life-threatening health problems due to the cough syrup, the company warned.

“In non-immunocompromised consumers, the population most likely to use the product, life-threatening infections are not likely to occur,” the recall notice from Haleon stated. “However, the occurrence of an infection that may necessitate medical intervention cannot be completely ruled out.”

People who have affected products should stop using them immediately. The company asked that anyone with the products email Haleon at [email protected], or call the company at 800-245-1040 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern time. 
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Some Robitussin cough syrup products are being recalled nationwide due to potentially deadly microbial contamination. 

The company that makes Robitussin syrups did not specify which microorganisms may be in the products. The recall announcement from the global consumer health products company Haleon stated that the contamination could lead to fungal infections or the presence of fungi or yeasts in a person’s blood. So far, the company has not received any reports of people being sickened by the recalled products.

The recall applies to bottles of Robitussin Honey CF Max Day and Robitussin Honey CF Max Nighttime. Both varieties are for adults. Affected products were sold nationwide and have specific lot numbers printed at the bottom of the back of the bottles. Consumers can view the lot numbers on the FDA’s recall webpage.

People with weakened immune systems have a higher risk of life-threatening health problems due to the cough syrup, the company warned.

“In non-immunocompromised consumers, the population most likely to use the product, life-threatening infections are not likely to occur,” the recall notice from Haleon stated. “However, the occurrence of an infection that may necessitate medical intervention cannot be completely ruled out.”

People who have affected products should stop using them immediately. The company asked that anyone with the products email Haleon at [email protected], or call the company at 800-245-1040 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern time. 
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If a pregnant woman contracts rubella in the first 17 weeks of pregnancy, then the risk for congenital rubella in the newborn — which may entail spontaneous abortion, intrauterine death, or severe fetal malformations — is as high as 80%. This risk once frightened patients and clinicians in Italy. Thanks to widespread population vaccination, however, the World Health Organization declared the elimination of endemic transmission of rubella in Italy in 2021. The Italian National Institute of Health took note, and the recent update of the Guidelines for the Management of Physiological Pregnancy no longer recommends offering rubella screening to all pregnant women.

The Rubeo Test

The rubeo test, an analysis for detecting antibodies in the blood produced by vaccination or a past rubella infection, traditionally forms part of the examination package that every doctor prescribes to expectant patients at the beginning of pregnancy. If the test shows that the woman is not vaccinated and has never encountered the virus, making her susceptible to the risk for infection, according to the previous edition of the Guidelines, then the test should be repeated at 17 weeks of gestation. The purpose is to detect any rubella contracted during pregnancy and offer the woman multidisciplinary counseling in the case of a high risk for severe fetal damage. Infection contracted after the 17th week, however, poses only a minimal risk for congenital deafness. There is no treatment to prevent vertical transmission in case of infection during pregnancy.

For women at risk for infection, the old Guidelines also recommended planning vaccination postnatally, with the prospect of protecting future pregnancies. Rubella vaccination is contraindicated during pregnancy because the vaccine could be teratogenic.

Recommendation Update

In the early ‘90s, universal vaccination against rubella for newborns was introduced in Italy. It became one of the 10 mandatory pediatric vaccinations in 2017. In June 2022, the Ministry of Health reported a vaccination coverage of 93.8% among children aged 24 months, a coverage of 93.3% for the first dose, and a coverage of 89.0% for the second dose in the 2003 birth cohort.

“Rubella is a notifiable disease, and in 2013, the newly activated national surveillance system detected one case of congenital rubella per 100,000 newborns. From 2018 onward, no cases have been reported,” said Vittorio Basevi, a gynecologist of the Perinatal Technical-Scientific Advisory Commission in the Emilia Romagna Region and coordinator of the Technical-Scientific Committee that developed the updated Guidelines. “Thanks to extensive vaccination coverage, the infection no longer circulates in Italy. Based on these data, we decided not to offer screening to pregnant women anymore.”

The recommendation to offer rubella vaccination post partum to women without documentation of two doses or previous infection remains confirmed.

Patients Born Abroad 

How should one handle the care of a pregnant woman born in a country where universal rubella vaccination is not provided? The likelihood that she is susceptible to infection is higher than the that of the general Italian population. “On the other hand, since the virus no longer circulates in our country, the probability of contracting the virus during pregnancy is negligible, unless she has recently traveled to her country of origin or come into contact with family members who recently arrived in Italy,” said Dr. Basevi. “The Guidelines refer to offering screening to all pregnant women. In specific cases, it is up to the treating physician to adopt the conduct they deem appropriate in science and conscience.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If a pregnant woman contracts rubella in the first 17 weeks of pregnancy, then the risk for congenital rubella in the newborn — which may entail spontaneous abortion, intrauterine death, or severe fetal malformations — is as high as 80%. This risk once frightened patients and clinicians in Italy. Thanks to widespread population vaccination, however, the World Health Organization declared the elimination of endemic transmission of rubella in Italy in 2021. The Italian National Institute of Health took note, and the recent update of the Guidelines for the Management of Physiological Pregnancy no longer recommends offering rubella screening to all pregnant women.

The Rubeo Test

The rubeo test, an analysis for detecting antibodies in the blood produced by vaccination or a past rubella infection, traditionally forms part of the examination package that every doctor prescribes to expectant patients at the beginning of pregnancy. If the test shows that the woman is not vaccinated and has never encountered the virus, making her susceptible to the risk for infection, according to the previous edition of the Guidelines, then the test should be repeated at 17 weeks of gestation. The purpose is to detect any rubella contracted during pregnancy and offer the woman multidisciplinary counseling in the case of a high risk for severe fetal damage. Infection contracted after the 17th week, however, poses only a minimal risk for congenital deafness. There is no treatment to prevent vertical transmission in case of infection during pregnancy.

For women at risk for infection, the old Guidelines also recommended planning vaccination postnatally, with the prospect of protecting future pregnancies. Rubella vaccination is contraindicated during pregnancy because the vaccine could be teratogenic.

Recommendation Update

In the early ‘90s, universal vaccination against rubella for newborns was introduced in Italy. It became one of the 10 mandatory pediatric vaccinations in 2017. In June 2022, the Ministry of Health reported a vaccination coverage of 93.8% among children aged 24 months, a coverage of 93.3% for the first dose, and a coverage of 89.0% for the second dose in the 2003 birth cohort.

“Rubella is a notifiable disease, and in 2013, the newly activated national surveillance system detected one case of congenital rubella per 100,000 newborns. From 2018 onward, no cases have been reported,” said Vittorio Basevi, a gynecologist of the Perinatal Technical-Scientific Advisory Commission in the Emilia Romagna Region and coordinator of the Technical-Scientific Committee that developed the updated Guidelines. “Thanks to extensive vaccination coverage, the infection no longer circulates in Italy. Based on these data, we decided not to offer screening to pregnant women anymore.”

The recommendation to offer rubella vaccination post partum to women without documentation of two doses or previous infection remains confirmed.

Patients Born Abroad 

How should one handle the care of a pregnant woman born in a country where universal rubella vaccination is not provided? The likelihood that she is susceptible to infection is higher than the that of the general Italian population. “On the other hand, since the virus no longer circulates in our country, the probability of contracting the virus during pregnancy is negligible, unless she has recently traveled to her country of origin or come into contact with family members who recently arrived in Italy,” said Dr. Basevi. “The Guidelines refer to offering screening to all pregnant women. In specific cases, it is up to the treating physician to adopt the conduct they deem appropriate in science and conscience.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If a pregnant woman contracts rubella in the first 17 weeks of pregnancy, then the risk for congenital rubella in the newborn — which may entail spontaneous abortion, intrauterine death, or severe fetal malformations — is as high as 80%. This risk once frightened patients and clinicians in Italy. Thanks to widespread population vaccination, however, the World Health Organization declared the elimination of endemic transmission of rubella in Italy in 2021. The Italian National Institute of Health took note, and the recent update of the Guidelines for the Management of Physiological Pregnancy no longer recommends offering rubella screening to all pregnant women.

The Rubeo Test

The rubeo test, an analysis for detecting antibodies in the blood produced by vaccination or a past rubella infection, traditionally forms part of the examination package that every doctor prescribes to expectant patients at the beginning of pregnancy. If the test shows that the woman is not vaccinated and has never encountered the virus, making her susceptible to the risk for infection, according to the previous edition of the Guidelines, then the test should be repeated at 17 weeks of gestation. The purpose is to detect any rubella contracted during pregnancy and offer the woman multidisciplinary counseling in the case of a high risk for severe fetal damage. Infection contracted after the 17th week, however, poses only a minimal risk for congenital deafness. There is no treatment to prevent vertical transmission in case of infection during pregnancy.

For women at risk for infection, the old Guidelines also recommended planning vaccination postnatally, with the prospect of protecting future pregnancies. Rubella vaccination is contraindicated during pregnancy because the vaccine could be teratogenic.

Recommendation Update

In the early ‘90s, universal vaccination against rubella for newborns was introduced in Italy. It became one of the 10 mandatory pediatric vaccinations in 2017. In June 2022, the Ministry of Health reported a vaccination coverage of 93.8% among children aged 24 months, a coverage of 93.3% for the first dose, and a coverage of 89.0% for the second dose in the 2003 birth cohort.

“Rubella is a notifiable disease, and in 2013, the newly activated national surveillance system detected one case of congenital rubella per 100,000 newborns. From 2018 onward, no cases have been reported,” said Vittorio Basevi, a gynecologist of the Perinatal Technical-Scientific Advisory Commission in the Emilia Romagna Region and coordinator of the Technical-Scientific Committee that developed the updated Guidelines. “Thanks to extensive vaccination coverage, the infection no longer circulates in Italy. Based on these data, we decided not to offer screening to pregnant women anymore.”

The recommendation to offer rubella vaccination post partum to women without documentation of two doses or previous infection remains confirmed.

Patients Born Abroad 

How should one handle the care of a pregnant woman born in a country where universal rubella vaccination is not provided? The likelihood that she is susceptible to infection is higher than the that of the general Italian population. “On the other hand, since the virus no longer circulates in our country, the probability of contracting the virus during pregnancy is negligible, unless she has recently traveled to her country of origin or come into contact with family members who recently arrived in Italy,” said Dr. Basevi. “The Guidelines refer to offering screening to all pregnant women. In specific cases, it is up to the treating physician to adopt the conduct they deem appropriate in science and conscience.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Artificial intelligence (AI) boosts the screening rate for potentially blinding diabetes eye disorders in a diabetes clinic compared with referral to an eye care provider (ECP) in a racially and ethnically diverse youth population with diabetes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although early screening and treatment can prevent diabetic eye diseases (DEDs), many people with diabetes in the United States lack access to and knowledge about diabetic eye exams.
• The  trial included 164 patients aged 8-21 years (58% female, 35% Black, and 6% Hispanic) with type 1 or 2 diabetes with no known DED and no diabetic eye exam in the last 6 months.
• In a diabetes clinic, patients were randomly assigned to an AI diabetic eye exam (intervention arm) then and there or to standard of care, referred to an ECP with scripted educational material (control).
• Participants in the intervention arm underwent the 5- to 10-minute autonomous AI diabetic eye exam without pharmacologic dilation. The results were generated immediately as either “DED present” or “DED absent.”
• The primary outcome was the completion rate of documented diabetic eye exams within 6 months (“primary gap closure rate”), either by AI or going to the ECP. The secondary outcome was ECP follow-up by intervention participants with DED (intervention) and all control patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 6 months, all the participants (100%) in the intervention arm completed their diabetic eye exam, a primary care gap closure rate of 100% (95% CI, 96%-100%).
• The rate of primary care gap closure was significantly higher in the intervention vs control arm (100% vs 22%; P < .001).
• In the intervention arm, 64% of patients with DED followed up with an eye care provider within 6 months compared with a mere 22% participants in the control arm (P < .001).
• Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with autonomous AI, with 92.5% expressing satisfaction with the exam’s duration and 96% expressing satisfaction with the whole experience.

IN PRACTICE:

“Autonomous AI increases diabetic eye exam completion rates and closes this care gap in a racially and ethnically diverse population of youth with diabetes, compared to standard of care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, which was led by Risa M. Wolf, MD, department of pediatrics, division of endocrinology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, was published online on January 11, 2024, in Nature Communications.

LIMITATIONS:

This study used autonomous AI in the youth although it’s not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in individuals aged 21 years and younger. Some of the participants in this study were already familiar with autonomous AI diabetic eye exams, which might have contributed to their willingness to participate in the current study. The autonomous AI used in the study was shown to have a lack of racial and ethnic bias, but any AI bias caused by differences in retinal pigment has potential to increase rather than decrease health disparities.

DISCLOSURES:

The clinical trial was supported by the National Eye Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the Diabetes Research Connection. Wolf, the lead author, declared receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Coauthor Michael D. Abramoff, MD, declared serving in various roles such as investor, director, and consultant for Digital Diagnostics Inc., as well as other ties with many sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Artificial intelligence (AI) boosts the screening rate for potentially blinding diabetes eye disorders in a diabetes clinic compared with referral to an eye care provider (ECP) in a racially and ethnically diverse youth population with diabetes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although early screening and treatment can prevent diabetic eye diseases (DEDs), many people with diabetes in the United States lack access to and knowledge about diabetic eye exams.
• The  trial included 164 patients aged 8-21 years (58% female, 35% Black, and 6% Hispanic) with type 1 or 2 diabetes with no known DED and no diabetic eye exam in the last 6 months.
• In a diabetes clinic, patients were randomly assigned to an AI diabetic eye exam (intervention arm) then and there or to standard of care, referred to an ECP with scripted educational material (control).
• Participants in the intervention arm underwent the 5- to 10-minute autonomous AI diabetic eye exam without pharmacologic dilation. The results were generated immediately as either “DED present” or “DED absent.”
• The primary outcome was the completion rate of documented diabetic eye exams within 6 months (“primary gap closure rate”), either by AI or going to the ECP. The secondary outcome was ECP follow-up by intervention participants with DED (intervention) and all control patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 6 months, all the participants (100%) in the intervention arm completed their diabetic eye exam, a primary care gap closure rate of 100% (95% CI, 96%-100%).
• The rate of primary care gap closure was significantly higher in the intervention vs control arm (100% vs 22%; P < .001).
• In the intervention arm, 64% of patients with DED followed up with an eye care provider within 6 months compared with a mere 22% participants in the control arm (P < .001).
• Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with autonomous AI, with 92.5% expressing satisfaction with the exam’s duration and 96% expressing satisfaction with the whole experience.

IN PRACTICE:

“Autonomous AI increases diabetic eye exam completion rates and closes this care gap in a racially and ethnically diverse population of youth with diabetes, compared to standard of care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, which was led by Risa M. Wolf, MD, department of pediatrics, division of endocrinology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, was published online on January 11, 2024, in Nature Communications.

LIMITATIONS:

This study used autonomous AI in the youth although it’s not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in individuals aged 21 years and younger. Some of the participants in this study were already familiar with autonomous AI diabetic eye exams, which might have contributed to their willingness to participate in the current study. The autonomous AI used in the study was shown to have a lack of racial and ethnic bias, but any AI bias caused by differences in retinal pigment has potential to increase rather than decrease health disparities.

DISCLOSURES:

The clinical trial was supported by the National Eye Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the Diabetes Research Connection. Wolf, the lead author, declared receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Coauthor Michael D. Abramoff, MD, declared serving in various roles such as investor, director, and consultant for Digital Diagnostics Inc., as well as other ties with many sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Artificial intelligence (AI) boosts the screening rate for potentially blinding diabetes eye disorders in a diabetes clinic compared with referral to an eye care provider (ECP) in a racially and ethnically diverse youth population with diabetes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although early screening and treatment can prevent diabetic eye diseases (DEDs), many people with diabetes in the United States lack access to and knowledge about diabetic eye exams.
• The  trial included 164 patients aged 8-21 years (58% female, 35% Black, and 6% Hispanic) with type 1 or 2 diabetes with no known DED and no diabetic eye exam in the last 6 months.
• In a diabetes clinic, patients were randomly assigned to an AI diabetic eye exam (intervention arm) then and there or to standard of care, referred to an ECP with scripted educational material (control).
• Participants in the intervention arm underwent the 5- to 10-minute autonomous AI diabetic eye exam without pharmacologic dilation. The results were generated immediately as either “DED present” or “DED absent.”
• The primary outcome was the completion rate of documented diabetic eye exams within 6 months (“primary gap closure rate”), either by AI or going to the ECP. The secondary outcome was ECP follow-up by intervention participants with DED (intervention) and all control patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 6 months, all the participants (100%) in the intervention arm completed their diabetic eye exam, a primary care gap closure rate of 100% (95% CI, 96%-100%).
• The rate of primary care gap closure was significantly higher in the intervention vs control arm (100% vs 22%; P < .001).
• In the intervention arm, 64% of patients with DED followed up with an eye care provider within 6 months compared with a mere 22% participants in the control arm (P < .001).
• Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with autonomous AI, with 92.5% expressing satisfaction with the exam’s duration and 96% expressing satisfaction with the whole experience.

IN PRACTICE:

“Autonomous AI increases diabetic eye exam completion rates and closes this care gap in a racially and ethnically diverse population of youth with diabetes, compared to standard of care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, which was led by Risa M. Wolf, MD, department of pediatrics, division of endocrinology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, was published online on January 11, 2024, in Nature Communications.

LIMITATIONS:

This study used autonomous AI in the youth although it’s not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in individuals aged 21 years and younger. Some of the participants in this study were already familiar with autonomous AI diabetic eye exams, which might have contributed to their willingness to participate in the current study. The autonomous AI used in the study was shown to have a lack of racial and ethnic bias, but any AI bias caused by differences in retinal pigment has potential to increase rather than decrease health disparities.

DISCLOSURES:

The clinical trial was supported by the National Eye Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the Diabetes Research Connection. Wolf, the lead author, declared receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Coauthor Michael D. Abramoff, MD, declared serving in various roles such as investor, director, and consultant for Digital Diagnostics Inc., as well as other ties with many sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) continue to have a significant impact on the lives of adolescents and young adults. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) 2021 surveillance report, rates of gonorrhea and syphilis in the United States were at their highest since the early 1990s. Chlamydia, one of the most common STIs, had a peak rate in 2019, but more recent rates may have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, those 15-24 years of age accounted for 58.5% of all chlamydia infections, 40.4% of all gonorrhea infections, and 18.3% of all syphilis infections in the US.

While pediatricians should discuss sexual health and STI screening with all their adolescent and young adult patients, LGBTQ+ youth are disproportionately impacted by STIs. For example, cisgender men who have sex with men have significantly higher rates of HIV, gonorrhea, and syphilis. These disparities are likely related to unequal access to care, systemic homophobia/transphobia, stigma, and differences in sexual networks and are even more pronounced for those with intersectional minoritized identities such as LGBTQ+ youth of color.¹

Courtesy Dr. Warus

In the past 12 years, there have been significant advances in HIV prevention methods, including the approval and use of pre-exposure prophylaxis or “PrEP” (a medication regimen that is taken on an ongoing basis to provide highly effective protection against HIV infection) and more widespread use of post-exposure prophylaxis or “PEP” (a medication regimen taken for 1 month after a potential exposure to HIV to prevent HIV from establishing an ongoing infection) outside of the medical setting. While these interventions have the potential to decrease rates of HIV infection, they do not prevent any other STIs.^2-3

The current strategies to prevent bacterial STIs include discussions of sexual practices, counseling on risk reduction strategies such as decreased number of partners and condom use, routine screening in those at risk every 3-12 months, and timely diagnosis and treatment of infections in patients and their partners to avoid further transmission.⁴ Given the increasing rates of bacterial STIs (gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis), additional biomedical prevention methods are greatly needed.
 

Doxycycline as post-exposure prophylaxis

Doxycycline is a tetracycline antibiotic effective against a wide range of bacteria and is commonly used in the treatment of acne, skin infections, Lyme disease, and STIs, and can also be used in the treatment and prevention of malaria.⁵ For STIs, doxycycline is currently the recommended treatment for chlamydia and is also an alternate therapy for syphilis in nonpregnant patients when penicillin is not accessible or in those with severe penicillin allergy.⁴ This medication is often well tolerated with the most common side effects including gastrointestinal irritation and photosensitivity. Doxycycline is contraindicated in pregnancy due to its potential impact on tooth and bone development.⁵

Given its general tolerability and activity against bacterial STIs, new and emerging studies have examined doxycycline as post-exposure prophylaxis (DoxyPEP: one dose of doxycycline 200 mg PO within 72 hours after unprotected sex) in an attempt to decrease the incidence of new bacterial STIs in populations at risk. Three of the studies cited in the preliminary CDC DoxyPEP guidelines were conducted in cisgender men who have sex with men and transgender women either living with HIV or taking PrEP for HIV prevention. All three studies demonstrated significantly lower risk of chlamydia and syphilis, while two of the studies also showed a significantly lower risk of gonorrhea. One additional study was conducted in cisgender women in Kenya. This study did not show any statistically significant difference in the risk of chlamydia or gonorrhea in the intervention group, but may have been limited by low adherence to the DoxyPEP regimen. There were no serious adverse events reported in any of the studies attributed to doxycycline.⁶

Avoiding antibiotic resistance

With the increased use of antibiotics, attention must always be paid to the potential for increasing antibiotic resistance. The preliminary CDC DoxyPEP guidelines outline mixed results in the DoxyPEP studies that had limited follow-up timeframes, making it difficult to draw conclusions: “Current data suggest overall benefit of the use of doxycycline PEP, but potential risks related to the development of resistance and impacts on the microbiome will need to be closely monitored after implementation of these guidelines.” Official guideline recommendations from the CDC regarding DoxyPEP are currently pending after a period of public comment on the preliminary drafted guidelines.⁶ However, the New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute released guidelines for DoxyPEP in September 2023 and several large urban public health departments have also issued their own guidance that largely align with the preliminary CDC guidelines.⁷

Recommendations currently emphasize that the goal is to allow for implementation of DoxyPEP in those who would benefit the most from the intervention (i.e., cisgender men who have sex with men and transgender women with a history of at least one bacterial STI in the last 12 months with ongoing risk of infection), while also minimizing antibiotic use. It should also be considered for those without a recent infection who have increased likelihood of exposure to bacterial STIs. DoxyPEP is likely to be effective in other populations (e.g., cisgender women, cisgender men who have sex with women, transgender men), but data are currently limited, and the risk/benefit ratio may be different in these populations. The recommended dose for DoxyPEP is doxycycline 200 mg once as soon as possible (within 72 hours) of unprotected oral, vaginal, or anal sex with a maximum of one dose every 24 hours. For those being prescribed DoxyPEP, gonorrhea and chlamydia screening of all anatomic sites of exposure (urine sample or frontal swab, throat swab, and/or rectal swab) should be conducted at baseline and then every 3-6 months in addition to blood testing for syphilis and HIV if indicated.^6-7

Another option in our toolkit

DoxyPEP should be viewed as one more option in our toolkit of sexual health services alongside risk reduction strategies (e.g., open discussions with partners, decreased number of partners, and condom use), routine STI screening and treatment, PrEP and PEP for HIV prevention, and pregnancy prevention. Not all of these tools will be relevant to each individual and discussions around sexual health should be patient-centered and focused on their own personal goals. As pediatricians, we should provide guidance to all adolescents and young adults on options to improve their sexual health and empower them to embrace their bodily autonomy.

Dr. Warus is in the division of adolescent and young adult medicine at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, where he specializes in care for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth, and LGBTQ health for youth. He is an assistant professor of pediatrics at USC.

Resources

CDC – Sexually Transmitted Infection Treatment Guidelines, 2021

CDC – [Preliminary] Guidelines for the Use of Doxycycline Post-Exposure Prophylaxis for Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) Prevention

New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute – Doxycycline Post-Exposure Prophylaxis to Prevent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infections

Los Angeles County Department of Public Health – DoxyPEP for STI Prevention
 

References

1. Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2021: National Overview of STDs, 2021. Last Reviewed May 16, 2023.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: US Public Health Service: Preexposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the United States – 2021 Update: A Clinical Practice Guideline. Published 2021.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: US Department of Health and Human Services: Updated Guidelines for Antiretroviral Postexposure Prophylaxis After Sexual, Injection Drug Use, or Other Nonoccupational Exposure to HIV – United States, 2016. Published 2016. .

4. Workowski KA et al. Sexually Transmitted Infection Treatment Guidelines, 2021. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2021;70(4):2-10.

5. Patel RS and Parmar M. Doxycycline Hyclate. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. Last Updated May 22, 2023.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Preliminary] Guidelines for the Use of Doxycycline Post-Exposure Prophylaxis for Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) Prevention. Published Oct 1, 2023.

7. DiMarco DE, et al. Doxycycline Post-Exposure Prophylaxis to Prevent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infections. New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute. Published September 25, 2023.

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) continue to have a significant impact on the lives of adolescents and young adults. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) 2021 surveillance report, rates of gonorrhea and syphilis in the United States were at their highest since the early 1990s. Chlamydia, one of the most common STIs, had a peak rate in 2019, but more recent rates may have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, those 15-24 years of age accounted for 58.5% of all chlamydia infections, 40.4% of all gonorrhea infections, and 18.3% of all syphilis infections in the US.

While pediatricians should discuss sexual health and STI screening with all their adolescent and young adult patients, LGBTQ+ youth are disproportionately impacted by STIs. For example, cisgender men who have sex with men have significantly higher rates of HIV, gonorrhea, and syphilis. These disparities are likely related to unequal access to care, systemic homophobia/transphobia, stigma, and differences in sexual networks and are even more pronounced for those with intersectional minoritized identities such as LGBTQ+ youth of color.¹

Courtesy Dr. Warus

In the past 12 years, there have been significant advances in HIV prevention methods, including the approval and use of pre-exposure prophylaxis or “PrEP” (a medication regimen that is taken on an ongoing basis to provide highly effective protection against HIV infection) and more widespread use of post-exposure prophylaxis or “PEP” (a medication regimen taken for 1 month after a potential exposure to HIV to prevent HIV from establishing an ongoing infection) outside of the medical setting. While these interventions have the potential to decrease rates of HIV infection, they do not prevent any other STIs.^2-3

The current strategies to prevent bacterial STIs include discussions of sexual practices, counseling on risk reduction strategies such as decreased number of partners and condom use, routine screening in those at risk every 3-12 months, and timely diagnosis and treatment of infections in patients and their partners to avoid further transmission.⁴ Given the increasing rates of bacterial STIs (gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis), additional biomedical prevention methods are greatly needed.
 

Doxycycline as post-exposure prophylaxis

Doxycycline is a tetracycline antibiotic effective against a wide range of bacteria and is commonly used in the treatment of acne, skin infections, Lyme disease, and STIs, and can also be used in the treatment and prevention of malaria.⁵ For STIs, doxycycline is currently the recommended treatment for chlamydia and is also an alternate therapy for syphilis in nonpregnant patients when penicillin is not accessible or in those with severe penicillin allergy.⁴ This medication is often well tolerated with the most common side effects including gastrointestinal irritation and photosensitivity. Doxycycline is contraindicated in pregnancy due to its potential impact on tooth and bone development.⁵

Given its general tolerability and activity against bacterial STIs, new and emerging studies have examined doxycycline as post-exposure prophylaxis (DoxyPEP: one dose of doxycycline 200 mg PO within 72 hours after unprotected sex) in an attempt to decrease the incidence of new bacterial STIs in populations at risk. Three of the studies cited in the preliminary CDC DoxyPEP guidelines were conducted in cisgender men who have sex with men and transgender women either living with HIV or taking PrEP for HIV prevention. All three studies demonstrated significantly lower risk of chlamydia and syphilis, while two of the studies also showed a significantly lower risk of gonorrhea. One additional study was conducted in cisgender women in Kenya. This study did not show any statistically significant difference in the risk of chlamydia or gonorrhea in the intervention group, but may have been limited by low adherence to the DoxyPEP regimen. There were no serious adverse events reported in any of the studies attributed to doxycycline.⁶

Avoiding antibiotic resistance

With the increased use of antibiotics, attention must always be paid to the potential for increasing antibiotic resistance. The preliminary CDC DoxyPEP guidelines outline mixed results in the DoxyPEP studies that had limited follow-up timeframes, making it difficult to draw conclusions: “Current data suggest overall benefit of the use of doxycycline PEP, but potential risks related to the development of resistance and impacts on the microbiome will need to be closely monitored after implementation of these guidelines.” Official guideline recommendations from the CDC regarding DoxyPEP are currently pending after a period of public comment on the preliminary drafted guidelines.⁶ However, the New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute released guidelines for DoxyPEP in September 2023 and several large urban public health departments have also issued their own guidance that largely align with the preliminary CDC guidelines.⁷

Recommendations currently emphasize that the goal is to allow for implementation of DoxyPEP in those who would benefit the most from the intervention (i.e., cisgender men who have sex with men and transgender women with a history of at least one bacterial STI in the last 12 months with ongoing risk of infection), while also minimizing antibiotic use. It should also be considered for those without a recent infection who have increased likelihood of exposure to bacterial STIs. DoxyPEP is likely to be effective in other populations (e.g., cisgender women, cisgender men who have sex with women, transgender men), but data are currently limited, and the risk/benefit ratio may be different in these populations. The recommended dose for DoxyPEP is doxycycline 200 mg once as soon as possible (within 72 hours) of unprotected oral, vaginal, or anal sex with a maximum of one dose every 24 hours. For those being prescribed DoxyPEP, gonorrhea and chlamydia screening of all anatomic sites of exposure (urine sample or frontal swab, throat swab, and/or rectal swab) should be conducted at baseline and then every 3-6 months in addition to blood testing for syphilis and HIV if indicated.^6-7

Another option in our toolkit

DoxyPEP should be viewed as one more option in our toolkit of sexual health services alongside risk reduction strategies (e.g., open discussions with partners, decreased number of partners, and condom use), routine STI screening and treatment, PrEP and PEP for HIV prevention, and pregnancy prevention. Not all of these tools will be relevant to each individual and discussions around sexual health should be patient-centered and focused on their own personal goals. As pediatricians, we should provide guidance to all adolescents and young adults on options to improve their sexual health and empower them to embrace their bodily autonomy.

Dr. Warus is in the division of adolescent and young adult medicine at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, where he specializes in care for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth, and LGBTQ health for youth. He is an assistant professor of pediatrics at USC.

Resources

CDC – Sexually Transmitted Infection Treatment Guidelines, 2021

CDC – [Preliminary] Guidelines for the Use of Doxycycline Post-Exposure Prophylaxis for Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) Prevention

New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute – Doxycycline Post-Exposure Prophylaxis to Prevent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infections

Los Angeles County Department of Public Health – DoxyPEP for STI Prevention
 

References

1. Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2021: National Overview of STDs, 2021. Last Reviewed May 16, 2023.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: US Public Health Service: Preexposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the United States – 2021 Update: A Clinical Practice Guideline. Published 2021.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: US Department of Health and Human Services: Updated Guidelines for Antiretroviral Postexposure Prophylaxis After Sexual, Injection Drug Use, or Other Nonoccupational Exposure to HIV – United States, 2016. Published 2016. .

4. Workowski KA et al. Sexually Transmitted Infection Treatment Guidelines, 2021. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2021;70(4):2-10.

5. Patel RS and Parmar M. Doxycycline Hyclate. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. Last Updated May 22, 2023.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Preliminary] Guidelines for the Use of Doxycycline Post-Exposure Prophylaxis for Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) Prevention. Published Oct 1, 2023.

7. DiMarco DE, et al. Doxycycline Post-Exposure Prophylaxis to Prevent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infections. New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute. Published September 25, 2023.

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) continue to have a significant impact on the lives of adolescents and young adults. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) 2021 surveillance report, rates of gonorrhea and syphilis in the United States were at their highest since the early 1990s. Chlamydia, one of the most common STIs, had a peak rate in 2019, but more recent rates may have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, those 15-24 years of age accounted for 58.5% of all chlamydia infections, 40.4% of all gonorrhea infections, and 18.3% of all syphilis infections in the US.

While pediatricians should discuss sexual health and STI screening with all their adolescent and young adult patients, LGBTQ+ youth are disproportionately impacted by STIs. For example, cisgender men who have sex with men have significantly higher rates of HIV, gonorrhea, and syphilis. These disparities are likely related to unequal access to care, systemic homophobia/transphobia, stigma, and differences in sexual networks and are even more pronounced for those with intersectional minoritized identities such as LGBTQ+ youth of color.¹

Courtesy Dr. Warus

In the past 12 years, there have been significant advances in HIV prevention methods, including the approval and use of pre-exposure prophylaxis or “PrEP” (a medication regimen that is taken on an ongoing basis to provide highly effective protection against HIV infection) and more widespread use of post-exposure prophylaxis or “PEP” (a medication regimen taken for 1 month after a potential exposure to HIV to prevent HIV from establishing an ongoing infection) outside of the medical setting. While these interventions have the potential to decrease rates of HIV infection, they do not prevent any other STIs.^2-3

The current strategies to prevent bacterial STIs include discussions of sexual practices, counseling on risk reduction strategies such as decreased number of partners and condom use, routine screening in those at risk every 3-12 months, and timely diagnosis and treatment of infections in patients and their partners to avoid further transmission.⁴ Given the increasing rates of bacterial STIs (gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis), additional biomedical prevention methods are greatly needed.
 

Doxycycline as post-exposure prophylaxis

Doxycycline is a tetracycline antibiotic effective against a wide range of bacteria and is commonly used in the treatment of acne, skin infections, Lyme disease, and STIs, and can also be used in the treatment and prevention of malaria.⁵ For STIs, doxycycline is currently the recommended treatment for chlamydia and is also an alternate therapy for syphilis in nonpregnant patients when penicillin is not accessible or in those with severe penicillin allergy.⁴ This medication is often well tolerated with the most common side effects including gastrointestinal irritation and photosensitivity. Doxycycline is contraindicated in pregnancy due to its potential impact on tooth and bone development.⁵

Given its general tolerability and activity against bacterial STIs, new and emerging studies have examined doxycycline as post-exposure prophylaxis (DoxyPEP: one dose of doxycycline 200 mg PO within 72 hours after unprotected sex) in an attempt to decrease the incidence of new bacterial STIs in populations at risk. Three of the studies cited in the preliminary CDC DoxyPEP guidelines were conducted in cisgender men who have sex with men and transgender women either living with HIV or taking PrEP for HIV prevention. All three studies demonstrated significantly lower risk of chlamydia and syphilis, while two of the studies also showed a significantly lower risk of gonorrhea. One additional study was conducted in cisgender women in Kenya. This study did not show any statistically significant difference in the risk of chlamydia or gonorrhea in the intervention group, but may have been limited by low adherence to the DoxyPEP regimen. There were no serious adverse events reported in any of the studies attributed to doxycycline.⁶

Avoiding antibiotic resistance

With the increased use of antibiotics, attention must always be paid to the potential for increasing antibiotic resistance. The preliminary CDC DoxyPEP guidelines outline mixed results in the DoxyPEP studies that had limited follow-up timeframes, making it difficult to draw conclusions: “Current data suggest overall benefit of the use of doxycycline PEP, but potential risks related to the development of resistance and impacts on the microbiome will need to be closely monitored after implementation of these guidelines.” Official guideline recommendations from the CDC regarding DoxyPEP are currently pending after a period of public comment on the preliminary drafted guidelines.⁶ However, the New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute released guidelines for DoxyPEP in September 2023 and several large urban public health departments have also issued their own guidance that largely align with the preliminary CDC guidelines.⁷

Recommendations currently emphasize that the goal is to allow for implementation of DoxyPEP in those who would benefit the most from the intervention (i.e., cisgender men who have sex with men and transgender women with a history of at least one bacterial STI in the last 12 months with ongoing risk of infection), while also minimizing antibiotic use. It should also be considered for those without a recent infection who have increased likelihood of exposure to bacterial STIs. DoxyPEP is likely to be effective in other populations (e.g., cisgender women, cisgender men who have sex with women, transgender men), but data are currently limited, and the risk/benefit ratio may be different in these populations. The recommended dose for DoxyPEP is doxycycline 200 mg once as soon as possible (within 72 hours) of unprotected oral, vaginal, or anal sex with a maximum of one dose every 24 hours. For those being prescribed DoxyPEP, gonorrhea and chlamydia screening of all anatomic sites of exposure (urine sample or frontal swab, throat swab, and/or rectal swab) should be conducted at baseline and then every 3-6 months in addition to blood testing for syphilis and HIV if indicated.^6-7

Another option in our toolkit

DoxyPEP should be viewed as one more option in our toolkit of sexual health services alongside risk reduction strategies (e.g., open discussions with partners, decreased number of partners, and condom use), routine STI screening and treatment, PrEP and PEP for HIV prevention, and pregnancy prevention. Not all of these tools will be relevant to each individual and discussions around sexual health should be patient-centered and focused on their own personal goals. As pediatricians, we should provide guidance to all adolescents and young adults on options to improve their sexual health and empower them to embrace their bodily autonomy.

Dr. Warus is in the division of adolescent and young adult medicine at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, where he specializes in care for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth, and LGBTQ health for youth. He is an assistant professor of pediatrics at USC.

Resources

CDC – Sexually Transmitted Infection Treatment Guidelines, 2021

CDC – [Preliminary] Guidelines for the Use of Doxycycline Post-Exposure Prophylaxis for Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) Prevention

New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute – Doxycycline Post-Exposure Prophylaxis to Prevent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infections

Los Angeles County Department of Public Health – DoxyPEP for STI Prevention
 

References

1. Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2021: National Overview of STDs, 2021. Last Reviewed May 16, 2023.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: US Public Health Service: Preexposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the United States – 2021 Update: A Clinical Practice Guideline. Published 2021.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: US Department of Health and Human Services: Updated Guidelines for Antiretroviral Postexposure Prophylaxis After Sexual, Injection Drug Use, or Other Nonoccupational Exposure to HIV – United States, 2016. Published 2016. .

4. Workowski KA et al. Sexually Transmitted Infection Treatment Guidelines, 2021. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2021;70(4):2-10.

5. Patel RS and Parmar M. Doxycycline Hyclate. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. Last Updated May 22, 2023.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Preliminary] Guidelines for the Use of Doxycycline Post-Exposure Prophylaxis for Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) Prevention. Published Oct 1, 2023.

7. DiMarco DE, et al. Doxycycline Post-Exposure Prophylaxis to Prevent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infections. New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute. Published September 25, 2023.