Federal Practitioner

Neutropenia and radiological findings affected the presentation and diagnosis of pulmonary mucormycosis in adult patients, based on data from 114 individuals.

Diagnosis of pulmonary mucormycosis (PM), an invasive and potentially life-threatening fungal infection, is often delayed because of its variable presentation, wrote Anne Coste, MD, of La Cavale Blanche Hospital and Brest (France) University Hospital, and colleagues.

Improved diagnostic tools including molecular identification and image-guided lung biopsies are now available in many centers, but relations between underlying conditions, clinical presentations, and diagnostic methods have not been described, they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from all cases of PM seen at six hospitals in France between 2008 and 2019. PM cases were based on European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) criteria. Diabetes and trauma were included as additional host factors, and positive serum or tissue PCR (serum qPCR) were included as mycological evidence. Participants also underwent thoracic computed tomography (CT) scans.

The most common underlying conditions among the 114 patients were hematological malignancy (49%), allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (21%), and solid organ transplantation (17%).

Among the 40% of the cases that involved dissemination, the most common sites were the liver (48%), spleen (48%), brain (44%), and kidneys (37%).

A review of radiology findings showed consolidation in a majority of patients (58%), as well as pleural effusion (52%). Other findings included reversed halo sign (RHS, 26%), halo sign (24%), vascular abnormalities (26%), and cavity (23%).

Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was present in 46 of 96 patients (50%), and transthoracic lung biopsy was used for diagnosis in 8 of 11 (73%) patients with previous negative BALs.

Seventy patients had neutropenia. Overall, patients with neutropenia were significantly more likely than were those without neutropenia to show an angioinvasive presentation that included both RHS and disease dissemination (P < .05).

In addition, serum qPCR was positive in 42 of 53 patients for whom data were available (79%). Serum qPCR was significantly more likely to be positive in neutropenic patients (91% vs. 62%, P = .02). Positive qPCR was associated with an early diagnosis (P = .03) and treatment onset (P = .01).

Possible reasons for the high rate of disseminated PM in the current study may be the large number of patients with pulmonary involvement, use of body CT data, and availability of autopsy results (for 11% of cases), the researchers wrote in their discussion.

Neutropenia and radiological findings influence disease presentation and contribution of diagnostic tools during PM. Serum qPCR is more contributive in neutropenic patients and BAL examination in nonneutropenic patients. Lung biopsies are highly contributive in case of non-contributive BAL.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, the inability to calculate sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic methods, and lack of data on patients with COVID-19, the researchers noted. However, the results provide real-life information for clinicians in centers with current mycological platforms, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Coste had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Neutropenia and radiological findings affected the presentation and diagnosis of pulmonary mucormycosis in adult patients, based on data from 114 individuals.

Diagnosis of pulmonary mucormycosis (PM), an invasive and potentially life-threatening fungal infection, is often delayed because of its variable presentation, wrote Anne Coste, MD, of La Cavale Blanche Hospital and Brest (France) University Hospital, and colleagues.

Improved diagnostic tools including molecular identification and image-guided lung biopsies are now available in many centers, but relations between underlying conditions, clinical presentations, and diagnostic methods have not been described, they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from all cases of PM seen at six hospitals in France between 2008 and 2019. PM cases were based on European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) criteria. Diabetes and trauma were included as additional host factors, and positive serum or tissue PCR (serum qPCR) were included as mycological evidence. Participants also underwent thoracic computed tomography (CT) scans.

The most common underlying conditions among the 114 patients were hematological malignancy (49%), allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (21%), and solid organ transplantation (17%).

Among the 40% of the cases that involved dissemination, the most common sites were the liver (48%), spleen (48%), brain (44%), and kidneys (37%).

A review of radiology findings showed consolidation in a majority of patients (58%), as well as pleural effusion (52%). Other findings included reversed halo sign (RHS, 26%), halo sign (24%), vascular abnormalities (26%), and cavity (23%).

Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was present in 46 of 96 patients (50%), and transthoracic lung biopsy was used for diagnosis in 8 of 11 (73%) patients with previous negative BALs.

Seventy patients had neutropenia. Overall, patients with neutropenia were significantly more likely than were those without neutropenia to show an angioinvasive presentation that included both RHS and disease dissemination (P < .05).

In addition, serum qPCR was positive in 42 of 53 patients for whom data were available (79%). Serum qPCR was significantly more likely to be positive in neutropenic patients (91% vs. 62%, P = .02). Positive qPCR was associated with an early diagnosis (P = .03) and treatment onset (P = .01).

Possible reasons for the high rate of disseminated PM in the current study may be the large number of patients with pulmonary involvement, use of body CT data, and availability of autopsy results (for 11% of cases), the researchers wrote in their discussion.

Neutropenia and radiological findings influence disease presentation and contribution of diagnostic tools during PM. Serum qPCR is more contributive in neutropenic patients and BAL examination in nonneutropenic patients. Lung biopsies are highly contributive in case of non-contributive BAL.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, the inability to calculate sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic methods, and lack of data on patients with COVID-19, the researchers noted. However, the results provide real-life information for clinicians in centers with current mycological platforms, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Coste had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Neutropenia and radiological findings affected the presentation and diagnosis of pulmonary mucormycosis in adult patients, based on data from 114 individuals.

Diagnosis of pulmonary mucormycosis (PM), an invasive and potentially life-threatening fungal infection, is often delayed because of its variable presentation, wrote Anne Coste, MD, of La Cavale Blanche Hospital and Brest (France) University Hospital, and colleagues.

Improved diagnostic tools including molecular identification and image-guided lung biopsies are now available in many centers, but relations between underlying conditions, clinical presentations, and diagnostic methods have not been described, they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from all cases of PM seen at six hospitals in France between 2008 and 2019. PM cases were based on European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) criteria. Diabetes and trauma were included as additional host factors, and positive serum or tissue PCR (serum qPCR) were included as mycological evidence. Participants also underwent thoracic computed tomography (CT) scans.

The most common underlying conditions among the 114 patients were hematological malignancy (49%), allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (21%), and solid organ transplantation (17%).

Among the 40% of the cases that involved dissemination, the most common sites were the liver (48%), spleen (48%), brain (44%), and kidneys (37%).

A review of radiology findings showed consolidation in a majority of patients (58%), as well as pleural effusion (52%). Other findings included reversed halo sign (RHS, 26%), halo sign (24%), vascular abnormalities (26%), and cavity (23%).

Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was present in 46 of 96 patients (50%), and transthoracic lung biopsy was used for diagnosis in 8 of 11 (73%) patients with previous negative BALs.

Seventy patients had neutropenia. Overall, patients with neutropenia were significantly more likely than were those without neutropenia to show an angioinvasive presentation that included both RHS and disease dissemination (P < .05).

In addition, serum qPCR was positive in 42 of 53 patients for whom data were available (79%). Serum qPCR was significantly more likely to be positive in neutropenic patients (91% vs. 62%, P = .02). Positive qPCR was associated with an early diagnosis (P = .03) and treatment onset (P = .01).

Possible reasons for the high rate of disseminated PM in the current study may be the large number of patients with pulmonary involvement, use of body CT data, and availability of autopsy results (for 11% of cases), the researchers wrote in their discussion.

Neutropenia and radiological findings influence disease presentation and contribution of diagnostic tools during PM. Serum qPCR is more contributive in neutropenic patients and BAL examination in nonneutropenic patients. Lung biopsies are highly contributive in case of non-contributive BAL.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, the inability to calculate sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic methods, and lack of data on patients with COVID-19, the researchers noted. However, the results provide real-life information for clinicians in centers with current mycological platforms, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Coste had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A popular ingredient in the American diet has been linked to ulcerative colitis. The ingredient is soybean oil, which is very common in processed foods. In fact, U.S. per capita consumption of soybean oil increased more than 1,000-fold during the 20th century.

In a study from the University of California, Riverside, and UC Davis, published in Gut Microbes, mice fed a diet high in soybean oil were more at risk of developing colitis. 

The likely culprit? Linoleic acid, an omega-6 fatty acid that composes up to 60% of soybean oil.

Small amounts of linoleic acid help maintain the body’s water balance. But Americans derive as much as 10% of their daily energy from linoleic acid, when they need only 1%-2%, the researchers say.

The findings build on earlier research linking a high-linoleic acid diet with inflammatory bowel disease, or IBD, in humans. (Previous research in mice has also linked high consumption of the oil with obesity and diabetes in the rodents.)

For the new study, the researchers wanted to drill down into how linoleic acid affects the gut.
 

How linoleic acid may promote inflammation

In mice, the soybean oil diet upset the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids in the gut. This led to a decrease in endocannabinoids, lipid-based molecules that help block inflammation.

Enzymes that metabolize fatty acids are “shared between two pathways,” said study coauthor Frances Sladek, PhD, professor of cell biology at UC Riverside. “If you swamp the system with linoleic acid, you’ll have less enzymes available to metabolize omega-3s into good endocannabinoids.”

The endocannabinoid system has been linked to “visceral pain” in the gut,  said Punyanganie de Silva, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study. But the relationship between the endocannabinoid system and inflammation has yet to be fully explored.

“This is one of the first papers that has looked at the association between linoleic acid and the endocannabinoid system,” Dr. de Silva said. “[The researchers] propose a potential new mechanism of how linoleic acid may increase inflammation” – that is, through its impact on the endocannabinoid system. 
 

Changes in the gut microbiome

The gut microbiome of the mice also showed increased amounts of adherent invasive E. coli, a type of bacteria that grows by using linoleic acid as a carbon source. A “very close relative” of this bacteria has been linked to IBD in humans, Dr. Sladek said.

Using a method known as metabolomics, the researchers studied 3,000 metabolites in the intestinal cells of both the mice and the bacteria. Endocannabinoids decreased in both.

“We were actually quite surprised. I didn’t realize that bacteria made endocannabinoids,” Dr. Sladek said.

Helpful bacteria, such as the probiotic lactobacillus species, died off. The mice also had increased levels of oxylipins, which are correlated with obesity in mice and colitis in humans.
 

A high–linoleic acid diet could mean a leaky gut

Linoleic acid binds to a protein known as HNF-4 alpha. Disrupting the expression of this protein can weaken the intestinal barrier, letting toxins flow into the body – more commonly known as leaky gut. Mice on the soybean oil diet had decreased levels of the protein and more porous intestinal barriers, raising the risk for inflammation and colitis. “The HNF-4 alpha protein is conserved from mouse to human, so whatever’s happening to it in the context of the mouse gut, there’s a very high chance that a similar effect could be seen in humans as well,” said study coauthor Poonamjot Deol, PhD, an assistant professional researcher at UC Riverside.

Still, Dr. de Silva urges “some caution when interpreting these results,” given that “this is still experimental and needs to be reproduced in clinical studies as humans have a far more varied microbiome and more variable environmental exposures than these very controlled mouse model studies.”

Dr. de Silva says cooking with olive oil can “help increase omega-3 to omega-6 ratios” and advises eating a varied diet that includes omega-3 fats, such as flaxseed and walnuts, and minimal amounts of processed foods and saturated fats.

Looking ahead, endocannabinoids are being explored as “a potential therapy for treating IBD symptoms,” said Dr. Deol. She hopes to delve further into how linoleic acid affects the endocannabinoid system.

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

A popular ingredient in the American diet has been linked to ulcerative colitis. The ingredient is soybean oil, which is very common in processed foods. In fact, U.S. per capita consumption of soybean oil increased more than 1,000-fold during the 20th century.

In a study from the University of California, Riverside, and UC Davis, published in Gut Microbes, mice fed a diet high in soybean oil were more at risk of developing colitis. 

The likely culprit? Linoleic acid, an omega-6 fatty acid that composes up to 60% of soybean oil.

Small amounts of linoleic acid help maintain the body’s water balance. But Americans derive as much as 10% of their daily energy from linoleic acid, when they need only 1%-2%, the researchers say.

The findings build on earlier research linking a high-linoleic acid diet with inflammatory bowel disease, or IBD, in humans. (Previous research in mice has also linked high consumption of the oil with obesity and diabetes in the rodents.)

For the new study, the researchers wanted to drill down into how linoleic acid affects the gut.
 

How linoleic acid may promote inflammation

In mice, the soybean oil diet upset the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids in the gut. This led to a decrease in endocannabinoids, lipid-based molecules that help block inflammation.

Enzymes that metabolize fatty acids are “shared between two pathways,” said study coauthor Frances Sladek, PhD, professor of cell biology at UC Riverside. “If you swamp the system with linoleic acid, you’ll have less enzymes available to metabolize omega-3s into good endocannabinoids.”

The endocannabinoid system has been linked to “visceral pain” in the gut,  said Punyanganie de Silva, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study. But the relationship between the endocannabinoid system and inflammation has yet to be fully explored.

“This is one of the first papers that has looked at the association between linoleic acid and the endocannabinoid system,” Dr. de Silva said. “[The researchers] propose a potential new mechanism of how linoleic acid may increase inflammation” – that is, through its impact on the endocannabinoid system. 
 

Changes in the gut microbiome

The gut microbiome of the mice also showed increased amounts of adherent invasive E. coli, a type of bacteria that grows by using linoleic acid as a carbon source. A “very close relative” of this bacteria has been linked to IBD in humans, Dr. Sladek said.

Using a method known as metabolomics, the researchers studied 3,000 metabolites in the intestinal cells of both the mice and the bacteria. Endocannabinoids decreased in both.

“We were actually quite surprised. I didn’t realize that bacteria made endocannabinoids,” Dr. Sladek said.

Helpful bacteria, such as the probiotic lactobacillus species, died off. The mice also had increased levels of oxylipins, which are correlated with obesity in mice and colitis in humans.
 

A high–linoleic acid diet could mean a leaky gut

Linoleic acid binds to a protein known as HNF-4 alpha. Disrupting the expression of this protein can weaken the intestinal barrier, letting toxins flow into the body – more commonly known as leaky gut. Mice on the soybean oil diet had decreased levels of the protein and more porous intestinal barriers, raising the risk for inflammation and colitis. “The HNF-4 alpha protein is conserved from mouse to human, so whatever’s happening to it in the context of the mouse gut, there’s a very high chance that a similar effect could be seen in humans as well,” said study coauthor Poonamjot Deol, PhD, an assistant professional researcher at UC Riverside.

Still, Dr. de Silva urges “some caution when interpreting these results,” given that “this is still experimental and needs to be reproduced in clinical studies as humans have a far more varied microbiome and more variable environmental exposures than these very controlled mouse model studies.”

Dr. de Silva says cooking with olive oil can “help increase omega-3 to omega-6 ratios” and advises eating a varied diet that includes omega-3 fats, such as flaxseed and walnuts, and minimal amounts of processed foods and saturated fats.

Looking ahead, endocannabinoids are being explored as “a potential therapy for treating IBD symptoms,” said Dr. Deol. She hopes to delve further into how linoleic acid affects the endocannabinoid system.

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

A popular ingredient in the American diet has been linked to ulcerative colitis. The ingredient is soybean oil, which is very common in processed foods. In fact, U.S. per capita consumption of soybean oil increased more than 1,000-fold during the 20th century.

In a study from the University of California, Riverside, and UC Davis, published in Gut Microbes, mice fed a diet high in soybean oil were more at risk of developing colitis. 

The likely culprit? Linoleic acid, an omega-6 fatty acid that composes up to 60% of soybean oil.

Small amounts of linoleic acid help maintain the body’s water balance. But Americans derive as much as 10% of their daily energy from linoleic acid, when they need only 1%-2%, the researchers say.

The findings build on earlier research linking a high-linoleic acid diet with inflammatory bowel disease, or IBD, in humans. (Previous research in mice has also linked high consumption of the oil with obesity and diabetes in the rodents.)

For the new study, the researchers wanted to drill down into how linoleic acid affects the gut.
 

How linoleic acid may promote inflammation

In mice, the soybean oil diet upset the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids in the gut. This led to a decrease in endocannabinoids, lipid-based molecules that help block inflammation.

Enzymes that metabolize fatty acids are “shared between two pathways,” said study coauthor Frances Sladek, PhD, professor of cell biology at UC Riverside. “If you swamp the system with linoleic acid, you’ll have less enzymes available to metabolize omega-3s into good endocannabinoids.”

The endocannabinoid system has been linked to “visceral pain” in the gut,  said Punyanganie de Silva, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study. But the relationship between the endocannabinoid system and inflammation has yet to be fully explored.

“This is one of the first papers that has looked at the association between linoleic acid and the endocannabinoid system,” Dr. de Silva said. “[The researchers] propose a potential new mechanism of how linoleic acid may increase inflammation” – that is, through its impact on the endocannabinoid system. 
 

Changes in the gut microbiome

The gut microbiome of the mice also showed increased amounts of adherent invasive E. coli, a type of bacteria that grows by using linoleic acid as a carbon source. A “very close relative” of this bacteria has been linked to IBD in humans, Dr. Sladek said.

Using a method known as metabolomics, the researchers studied 3,000 metabolites in the intestinal cells of both the mice and the bacteria. Endocannabinoids decreased in both.

“We were actually quite surprised. I didn’t realize that bacteria made endocannabinoids,” Dr. Sladek said.

Helpful bacteria, such as the probiotic lactobacillus species, died off. The mice also had increased levels of oxylipins, which are correlated with obesity in mice and colitis in humans.
 

A high–linoleic acid diet could mean a leaky gut

Linoleic acid binds to a protein known as HNF-4 alpha. Disrupting the expression of this protein can weaken the intestinal barrier, letting toxins flow into the body – more commonly known as leaky gut. Mice on the soybean oil diet had decreased levels of the protein and more porous intestinal barriers, raising the risk for inflammation and colitis. “The HNF-4 alpha protein is conserved from mouse to human, so whatever’s happening to it in the context of the mouse gut, there’s a very high chance that a similar effect could be seen in humans as well,” said study coauthor Poonamjot Deol, PhD, an assistant professional researcher at UC Riverside.

Still, Dr. de Silva urges “some caution when interpreting these results,” given that “this is still experimental and needs to be reproduced in clinical studies as humans have a far more varied microbiome and more variable environmental exposures than these very controlled mouse model studies.”

Dr. de Silva says cooking with olive oil can “help increase omega-3 to omega-6 ratios” and advises eating a varied diet that includes omega-3 fats, such as flaxseed and walnuts, and minimal amounts of processed foods and saturated fats.

Looking ahead, endocannabinoids are being explored as “a potential therapy for treating IBD symptoms,” said Dr. Deol. She hopes to delve further into how linoleic acid affects the endocannabinoid system.

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

BALTIMORE – Receiving the first dose of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine at age 9, rather than bundling it with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines, appears to increase the likelihood that children will complete the HPV vaccine series, according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.

Changing attitudes

“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.

Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.

However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.

“The bundling was really to vaccinate people by the age of 13, thinking that onset of sexual activity was after that,” study author Sidika Kajtezovic, MD, a resident at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Obstetrics and Gynecology, said in an interview. But Dr. Kajtezovic said she delivers babies for 13-year-old patients. “Kids are having sex sooner or sooner.” It’s also clear that using the bundling strategy is not making up the entire gap right now: Ninety percent of children are getting the meningococcal vaccine while only 49% are getting the HPV vaccine, Dr. Kajtezovic pointed out. “There’s a disconnect happening there, even with the bundling,” she said.
 

Debundling vaccines

Dr. Kajtezovic and her colleagues used a national database of employee-sponsored health insurance to analyze the records of 100,857 children who were continuously enrolled in a plan from age 9 in 2015 to age 13 in 2019. They calculated the odds of children completing the HPV vaccine series based on whether they started the series before, at the same time as, or after the Tdap vaccination.

Youth who received the HPV vaccine before their Tdap vaccine had 38% greater odds of completing the series – getting both doses – than did those who received the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap vaccine. Meanwhile, in line with prior evidence, those who got the first HPV dose after their Tdap were less likely – 68% lower odds – to complete the two- or three-dose (if starting above age 14) series.

The researchers identified several other factors that were linked to completing the HPV vaccine series. Females had greater odds than did males of completing the series, as did those living in urban, rather than rural, areas. Other factors associated with completing the series included living in the Northeast United States and receiving primary care from a pediatrician rather than a family medicine physician.
 

Timing is important

“I am encouraged by the findings of this study,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “However, I would have liked the authors to expand the age range a bit higher. There are data that continuing to discuss the HPV vaccine with parents and teens will increase uptake into the later teen years.”

One challenge is that research shows attendance at primary care visits declines in older adolescence. Since there is no second Tdap or meningitis shot, families need to return for the second HPV vaccine dose after those shots, though they could get the second dose at the same time as other two vaccines if they receive the first dose before age 11. There’s also evidence suggesting that providers find conversations about the HPV vaccine easier when sexual activity is not the focus.

“I often feel that, before a child reaches adolescence, they’re almost, in a way, not sexualized yet, so talking about cancer prevention for an 8- or 9-year-old sometimes sounds a little different to patients versus protecting your 12-year-old, who’s starting to go through adolescence and developing breasts” and other signs of puberty, Dr. Kajtezovic said. Keeping the focus of HPV vaccine discussions on cancer prevention also allows providers to point out the protection against anal cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer, and head and neck cancer. “They are horrible, and even if they’re treatable, they’re often very hard to treat at an advanced stage,” Dr. Kajtezovic said. “The surgery required is so life disabling and disfiguring.”

The HPV Roundtable advises continuing bundling at practices having success with it but encourages practices to consider earlier vaccination if their uptake is lagging. Quality improvement initiatives, such as earlier electronic medical record prompts and multi-level interventions in pediatric practices, have shown substantial increases in HPV vaccine uptake at 9 and 10 years old. One survey in 2021 found that one in five primary care providers already routinely recommend the HPV vaccine at ages 9-10, and nearly half of others would consider doing so.

“My hope is in the next few years, when [the CDC] refreshes their vaccine recommendations, that they will either unbundle it or move the bar a few years earlier so that you can initiate it to encourage earlier initiation,” Dr. Kajtezovic said.

Dr. Ault had no other disclosures besides prior service on ACIP. Dr. Kajtezovic had no disclosures.

BALTIMORE – Receiving the first dose of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine at age 9, rather than bundling it with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines, appears to increase the likelihood that children will complete the HPV vaccine series, according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.

Changing attitudes

“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.

Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.

However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.

“The bundling was really to vaccinate people by the age of 13, thinking that onset of sexual activity was after that,” study author Sidika Kajtezovic, MD, a resident at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Obstetrics and Gynecology, said in an interview. But Dr. Kajtezovic said she delivers babies for 13-year-old patients. “Kids are having sex sooner or sooner.” It’s also clear that using the bundling strategy is not making up the entire gap right now: Ninety percent of children are getting the meningococcal vaccine while only 49% are getting the HPV vaccine, Dr. Kajtezovic pointed out. “There’s a disconnect happening there, even with the bundling,” she said.
 

Debundling vaccines

Dr. Kajtezovic and her colleagues used a national database of employee-sponsored health insurance to analyze the records of 100,857 children who were continuously enrolled in a plan from age 9 in 2015 to age 13 in 2019. They calculated the odds of children completing the HPV vaccine series based on whether they started the series before, at the same time as, or after the Tdap vaccination.

Youth who received the HPV vaccine before their Tdap vaccine had 38% greater odds of completing the series – getting both doses – than did those who received the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap vaccine. Meanwhile, in line with prior evidence, those who got the first HPV dose after their Tdap were less likely – 68% lower odds – to complete the two- or three-dose (if starting above age 14) series.

The researchers identified several other factors that were linked to completing the HPV vaccine series. Females had greater odds than did males of completing the series, as did those living in urban, rather than rural, areas. Other factors associated with completing the series included living in the Northeast United States and receiving primary care from a pediatrician rather than a family medicine physician.
 

Timing is important

“I am encouraged by the findings of this study,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “However, I would have liked the authors to expand the age range a bit higher. There are data that continuing to discuss the HPV vaccine with parents and teens will increase uptake into the later teen years.”

One challenge is that research shows attendance at primary care visits declines in older adolescence. Since there is no second Tdap or meningitis shot, families need to return for the second HPV vaccine dose after those shots, though they could get the second dose at the same time as other two vaccines if they receive the first dose before age 11. There’s also evidence suggesting that providers find conversations about the HPV vaccine easier when sexual activity is not the focus.

“I often feel that, before a child reaches adolescence, they’re almost, in a way, not sexualized yet, so talking about cancer prevention for an 8- or 9-year-old sometimes sounds a little different to patients versus protecting your 12-year-old, who’s starting to go through adolescence and developing breasts” and other signs of puberty, Dr. Kajtezovic said. Keeping the focus of HPV vaccine discussions on cancer prevention also allows providers to point out the protection against anal cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer, and head and neck cancer. “They are horrible, and even if they’re treatable, they’re often very hard to treat at an advanced stage,” Dr. Kajtezovic said. “The surgery required is so life disabling and disfiguring.”

The HPV Roundtable advises continuing bundling at practices having success with it but encourages practices to consider earlier vaccination if their uptake is lagging. Quality improvement initiatives, such as earlier electronic medical record prompts and multi-level interventions in pediatric practices, have shown substantial increases in HPV vaccine uptake at 9 and 10 years old. One survey in 2021 found that one in five primary care providers already routinely recommend the HPV vaccine at ages 9-10, and nearly half of others would consider doing so.

“My hope is in the next few years, when [the CDC] refreshes their vaccine recommendations, that they will either unbundle it or move the bar a few years earlier so that you can initiate it to encourage earlier initiation,” Dr. Kajtezovic said.

Dr. Ault had no other disclosures besides prior service on ACIP. Dr. Kajtezovic had no disclosures.

BALTIMORE – Receiving the first dose of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine at age 9, rather than bundling it with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines, appears to increase the likelihood that children will complete the HPV vaccine series, according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.

Changing attitudes

“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.

Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.

However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.

“The bundling was really to vaccinate people by the age of 13, thinking that onset of sexual activity was after that,” study author Sidika Kajtezovic, MD, a resident at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Obstetrics and Gynecology, said in an interview. But Dr. Kajtezovic said she delivers babies for 13-year-old patients. “Kids are having sex sooner or sooner.” It’s also clear that using the bundling strategy is not making up the entire gap right now: Ninety percent of children are getting the meningococcal vaccine while only 49% are getting the HPV vaccine, Dr. Kajtezovic pointed out. “There’s a disconnect happening there, even with the bundling,” she said.
 

Debundling vaccines

Dr. Kajtezovic and her colleagues used a national database of employee-sponsored health insurance to analyze the records of 100,857 children who were continuously enrolled in a plan from age 9 in 2015 to age 13 in 2019. They calculated the odds of children completing the HPV vaccine series based on whether they started the series before, at the same time as, or after the Tdap vaccination.

Youth who received the HPV vaccine before their Tdap vaccine had 38% greater odds of completing the series – getting both doses – than did those who received the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap vaccine. Meanwhile, in line with prior evidence, those who got the first HPV dose after their Tdap were less likely – 68% lower odds – to complete the two- or three-dose (if starting above age 14) series.

The researchers identified several other factors that were linked to completing the HPV vaccine series. Females had greater odds than did males of completing the series, as did those living in urban, rather than rural, areas. Other factors associated with completing the series included living in the Northeast United States and receiving primary care from a pediatrician rather than a family medicine physician.
 

Timing is important

“I am encouraged by the findings of this study,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “However, I would have liked the authors to expand the age range a bit higher. There are data that continuing to discuss the HPV vaccine with parents and teens will increase uptake into the later teen years.”

One challenge is that research shows attendance at primary care visits declines in older adolescence. Since there is no second Tdap or meningitis shot, families need to return for the second HPV vaccine dose after those shots, though they could get the second dose at the same time as other two vaccines if they receive the first dose before age 11. There’s also evidence suggesting that providers find conversations about the HPV vaccine easier when sexual activity is not the focus.

“I often feel that, before a child reaches adolescence, they’re almost, in a way, not sexualized yet, so talking about cancer prevention for an 8- or 9-year-old sometimes sounds a little different to patients versus protecting your 12-year-old, who’s starting to go through adolescence and developing breasts” and other signs of puberty, Dr. Kajtezovic said. Keeping the focus of HPV vaccine discussions on cancer prevention also allows providers to point out the protection against anal cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer, and head and neck cancer. “They are horrible, and even if they’re treatable, they’re often very hard to treat at an advanced stage,” Dr. Kajtezovic said. “The surgery required is so life disabling and disfiguring.”

The HPV Roundtable advises continuing bundling at practices having success with it but encourages practices to consider earlier vaccination if their uptake is lagging. Quality improvement initiatives, such as earlier electronic medical record prompts and multi-level interventions in pediatric practices, have shown substantial increases in HPV vaccine uptake at 9 and 10 years old. One survey in 2021 found that one in five primary care providers already routinely recommend the HPV vaccine at ages 9-10, and nearly half of others would consider doing so.

“My hope is in the next few years, when [the CDC] refreshes their vaccine recommendations, that they will either unbundle it or move the bar a few years earlier so that you can initiate it to encourage earlier initiation,” Dr. Kajtezovic said.

Dr. Ault had no other disclosures besides prior service on ACIP. Dr. Kajtezovic had no disclosures.

In psychiatry, patients come to us with their list of symptoms, often a diagnosis they’ve made themselves, and the expectation that they will be given medication to fix their problem. Their diagnoses are often right on target – people often know if they are depressed or anxious, and Doctor Google may provide useful information.

Sometimes they want a specific medication, one they saw in a TV ad, or one that helped them in the past or has helped someone they know. As psychiatrists have focused more on their strengths as psychopharmacologists and less on psychotherapy, it gets easy for both the patient and the doctor to look to medication, cocktails, and titration as the only thing we do.

“My medicine stopped working,” is a line I commonly hear. Often the patient is on a complicated regimen that has been serving them well, and it seems unlikely that the five psychotropic medications they are taking have suddenly “stopped working.” An obvious exception is the SSRI “poop out” that can occur 6-12 months or more after beginning treatment. In addition, it’s important to make sure patients are taking their medications as prescribed, and that the generic formulations have not changed.

But as rates of mental illness increase, some of it spurred on by difficult times, it is important to talk with patients about other factors that contribute to psychiatric conditions and to empower them to see their illnesses as something other than deranged brain chemicals in need of a medication fix.

This is not to devalue our medications, but to help the patient see symptoms as having multiple factors and give them some means to intervene, in addition to medications. At the beginning of therapy, it is important to “prescribe” lifestyle changes that will facilitate the best possible outcomes.
 

Nonpharmaceutical prescriptions

Early in my career, people with alcohol use problems were told they needed to be substance free before they were candidates for antidepressants. While we no longer do that, it is still important to emphasize abstinence from addictive substances, and to recommend specific treatment when necessary.

Patients are often reluctant to see their use of alcohol, marijuana (it’s medical! It’s part of wellness!), or their pain medications as part of the problem, and this can be difficult. There have been times, after multiple medications have failed to help their symptoms, when I have said, “If you don’t get treatment for this problem, I am not going to be able to help you feel better” and that has been motivating for the patient.

There are other “prescriptions” to write. Regular sleep is essential for people with mood disorders, and this can be difficult for many patients, especially those who do shift work, or who have regular disruptions to their sleep from noise, pets, and children. Exercise is wonderful for the cardiovascular system, calms anxiety, and maintains strength, endurance, mobility, and quality of life as people age. But it can be a hard sell to people in a mental health crisis.

Nature is healing, and sunshine helps with maintaining circadian rhythms. For those who don’t exercise, I often “prescribe” 20 to 30 minutes a day of walking, preferably outside, during daylight hours, in a park or natural setting. For people with anxiety, it is important to check their caffeine consumption and to suggest ways to moderate it – moving to decaffeinated beverages or titrating down by mixing decaf with caffeinated.

Meditation is something that many people find helpful. For anxious people, it can be very difficult, and I will prescribe a specific instructional video course that I like on the well-being app InsightTimer – Sarah Blondin’s Learn How to Meditate in Seven Days. The sessions are approximately 10 minutes long, and that seems like the right amount of time for a beginner.

When people are very ill and don’t want to go into the hospital, I talk with them about things that happen in the hospital that are helpful, things they can try to mimic at home. In the hospital, patients don’t go to work, they don’t spend hours a day on the computer, and they are given a pass from dealing with the routine stresses of daily life.

I ask them to take time off work, to avoid as much stress as possible, to spend time with loved ones who give them comfort, and to avoid the people who leave them feeling drained or distressed. I ask them to engage in activities they find healing, to eat well, exercise, and avoid social media. In the hospital, I emphasize, they wake patients up in the morning, ask them to get out of bed and engage in therapeutic activities. They are fed and kept from intoxicants.

When it comes to nutrition, we know so little about how food affects mental health. I feel like it can’t hurt to ask people to avoid fast foods, soft drinks, and processed foods, and so I do.

And what about compliance? Of course, not everyone complies; not everyone is interested in making changes and these can be hard changes. I’ve recently started to recommend the book Atomic Habits by James Clear. Sometimes a bit of motivational interviewing can also be helpful in getting people to look at slowly moving toward making changes.

In prescribing lifestyle changes, it is important to offer most of these changes as suggestions, not as things we insist on, or that will leave the patient feeling ashamed if he doesn’t follow through. They should be discussed early in treatment so that patients don’t feel blamed for their illness or relapses. As with all the things we prescribe, some of these behavior changes help some of the people some of the time. Suggesting them, however, makes the strong statement that treating psychiatric disorders can be about more than passively swallowing a pill.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

In psychiatry, patients come to us with their list of symptoms, often a diagnosis they’ve made themselves, and the expectation that they will be given medication to fix their problem. Their diagnoses are often right on target – people often know if they are depressed or anxious, and Doctor Google may provide useful information.

Sometimes they want a specific medication, one they saw in a TV ad, or one that helped them in the past or has helped someone they know. As psychiatrists have focused more on their strengths as psychopharmacologists and less on psychotherapy, it gets easy for both the patient and the doctor to look to medication, cocktails, and titration as the only thing we do.

“My medicine stopped working,” is a line I commonly hear. Often the patient is on a complicated regimen that has been serving them well, and it seems unlikely that the five psychotropic medications they are taking have suddenly “stopped working.” An obvious exception is the SSRI “poop out” that can occur 6-12 months or more after beginning treatment. In addition, it’s important to make sure patients are taking their medications as prescribed, and that the generic formulations have not changed.

But as rates of mental illness increase, some of it spurred on by difficult times, it is important to talk with patients about other factors that contribute to psychiatric conditions and to empower them to see their illnesses as something other than deranged brain chemicals in need of a medication fix.

This is not to devalue our medications, but to help the patient see symptoms as having multiple factors and give them some means to intervene, in addition to medications. At the beginning of therapy, it is important to “prescribe” lifestyle changes that will facilitate the best possible outcomes.
 

Nonpharmaceutical prescriptions

Early in my career, people with alcohol use problems were told they needed to be substance free before they were candidates for antidepressants. While we no longer do that, it is still important to emphasize abstinence from addictive substances, and to recommend specific treatment when necessary.

Patients are often reluctant to see their use of alcohol, marijuana (it’s medical! It’s part of wellness!), or their pain medications as part of the problem, and this can be difficult. There have been times, after multiple medications have failed to help their symptoms, when I have said, “If you don’t get treatment for this problem, I am not going to be able to help you feel better” and that has been motivating for the patient.

There are other “prescriptions” to write. Regular sleep is essential for people with mood disorders, and this can be difficult for many patients, especially those who do shift work, or who have regular disruptions to their sleep from noise, pets, and children. Exercise is wonderful for the cardiovascular system, calms anxiety, and maintains strength, endurance, mobility, and quality of life as people age. But it can be a hard sell to people in a mental health crisis.

Nature is healing, and sunshine helps with maintaining circadian rhythms. For those who don’t exercise, I often “prescribe” 20 to 30 minutes a day of walking, preferably outside, during daylight hours, in a park or natural setting. For people with anxiety, it is important to check their caffeine consumption and to suggest ways to moderate it – moving to decaffeinated beverages or titrating down by mixing decaf with caffeinated.

Meditation is something that many people find helpful. For anxious people, it can be very difficult, and I will prescribe a specific instructional video course that I like on the well-being app InsightTimer – Sarah Blondin’s Learn How to Meditate in Seven Days. The sessions are approximately 10 minutes long, and that seems like the right amount of time for a beginner.

When people are very ill and don’t want to go into the hospital, I talk with them about things that happen in the hospital that are helpful, things they can try to mimic at home. In the hospital, patients don’t go to work, they don’t spend hours a day on the computer, and they are given a pass from dealing with the routine stresses of daily life.

I ask them to take time off work, to avoid as much stress as possible, to spend time with loved ones who give them comfort, and to avoid the people who leave them feeling drained or distressed. I ask them to engage in activities they find healing, to eat well, exercise, and avoid social media. In the hospital, I emphasize, they wake patients up in the morning, ask them to get out of bed and engage in therapeutic activities. They are fed and kept from intoxicants.

When it comes to nutrition, we know so little about how food affects mental health. I feel like it can’t hurt to ask people to avoid fast foods, soft drinks, and processed foods, and so I do.

And what about compliance? Of course, not everyone complies; not everyone is interested in making changes and these can be hard changes. I’ve recently started to recommend the book Atomic Habits by James Clear. Sometimes a bit of motivational interviewing can also be helpful in getting people to look at slowly moving toward making changes.

In prescribing lifestyle changes, it is important to offer most of these changes as suggestions, not as things we insist on, or that will leave the patient feeling ashamed if he doesn’t follow through. They should be discussed early in treatment so that patients don’t feel blamed for their illness or relapses. As with all the things we prescribe, some of these behavior changes help some of the people some of the time. Suggesting them, however, makes the strong statement that treating psychiatric disorders can be about more than passively swallowing a pill.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

In psychiatry, patients come to us with their list of symptoms, often a diagnosis they’ve made themselves, and the expectation that they will be given medication to fix their problem. Their diagnoses are often right on target – people often know if they are depressed or anxious, and Doctor Google may provide useful information.

Sometimes they want a specific medication, one they saw in a TV ad, or one that helped them in the past or has helped someone they know. As psychiatrists have focused more on their strengths as psychopharmacologists and less on psychotherapy, it gets easy for both the patient and the doctor to look to medication, cocktails, and titration as the only thing we do.

“My medicine stopped working,” is a line I commonly hear. Often the patient is on a complicated regimen that has been serving them well, and it seems unlikely that the five psychotropic medications they are taking have suddenly “stopped working.” An obvious exception is the SSRI “poop out” that can occur 6-12 months or more after beginning treatment. In addition, it’s important to make sure patients are taking their medications as prescribed, and that the generic formulations have not changed.

But as rates of mental illness increase, some of it spurred on by difficult times, it is important to talk with patients about other factors that contribute to psychiatric conditions and to empower them to see their illnesses as something other than deranged brain chemicals in need of a medication fix.

This is not to devalue our medications, but to help the patient see symptoms as having multiple factors and give them some means to intervene, in addition to medications. At the beginning of therapy, it is important to “prescribe” lifestyle changes that will facilitate the best possible outcomes.
 

Nonpharmaceutical prescriptions

Early in my career, people with alcohol use problems were told they needed to be substance free before they were candidates for antidepressants. While we no longer do that, it is still important to emphasize abstinence from addictive substances, and to recommend specific treatment when necessary.

Patients are often reluctant to see their use of alcohol, marijuana (it’s medical! It’s part of wellness!), or their pain medications as part of the problem, and this can be difficult. There have been times, after multiple medications have failed to help their symptoms, when I have said, “If you don’t get treatment for this problem, I am not going to be able to help you feel better” and that has been motivating for the patient.

There are other “prescriptions” to write. Regular sleep is essential for people with mood disorders, and this can be difficult for many patients, especially those who do shift work, or who have regular disruptions to their sleep from noise, pets, and children. Exercise is wonderful for the cardiovascular system, calms anxiety, and maintains strength, endurance, mobility, and quality of life as people age. But it can be a hard sell to people in a mental health crisis.

Nature is healing, and sunshine helps with maintaining circadian rhythms. For those who don’t exercise, I often “prescribe” 20 to 30 minutes a day of walking, preferably outside, during daylight hours, in a park or natural setting. For people with anxiety, it is important to check their caffeine consumption and to suggest ways to moderate it – moving to decaffeinated beverages or titrating down by mixing decaf with caffeinated.

Meditation is something that many people find helpful. For anxious people, it can be very difficult, and I will prescribe a specific instructional video course that I like on the well-being app InsightTimer – Sarah Blondin’s Learn How to Meditate in Seven Days. The sessions are approximately 10 minutes long, and that seems like the right amount of time for a beginner.

When people are very ill and don’t want to go into the hospital, I talk with them about things that happen in the hospital that are helpful, things they can try to mimic at home. In the hospital, patients don’t go to work, they don’t spend hours a day on the computer, and they are given a pass from dealing with the routine stresses of daily life.

I ask them to take time off work, to avoid as much stress as possible, to spend time with loved ones who give them comfort, and to avoid the people who leave them feeling drained or distressed. I ask them to engage in activities they find healing, to eat well, exercise, and avoid social media. In the hospital, I emphasize, they wake patients up in the morning, ask them to get out of bed and engage in therapeutic activities. They are fed and kept from intoxicants.

When it comes to nutrition, we know so little about how food affects mental health. I feel like it can’t hurt to ask people to avoid fast foods, soft drinks, and processed foods, and so I do.

And what about compliance? Of course, not everyone complies; not everyone is interested in making changes and these can be hard changes. I’ve recently started to recommend the book Atomic Habits by James Clear. Sometimes a bit of motivational interviewing can also be helpful in getting people to look at slowly moving toward making changes.

In prescribing lifestyle changes, it is important to offer most of these changes as suggestions, not as things we insist on, or that will leave the patient feeling ashamed if he doesn’t follow through. They should be discussed early in treatment so that patients don’t feel blamed for their illness or relapses. As with all the things we prescribe, some of these behavior changes help some of the people some of the time. Suggesting them, however, makes the strong statement that treating psychiatric disorders can be about more than passively swallowing a pill.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Family physicians receive less private insurer reimbursement for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine than do pediatricians, according to a new analysis in Family Medicine.

HPV is the most expensive of all routine pediatric vaccines and the reimbursement by third-party payers varies widely. The concerns about HPV reimbursement often appear on clinician surveys.

This study, led by Yenan Zhu, PhD, who was with the department of public health sciences, college of medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, at the time of the research, found that, on average, pediatricians received higher reimbursement ($216.07) for HPV vaccine cost when compared with family physicians ($211.33), internists ($212.97), nurse practitioners ($212.91), and “other” clinicians who administer the vaccine ($213.29) (P values for all comparisons were < .001).

The final sample for this study included 34,247 clinicians.

The net return from vaccine cost reimbursements was lowest for family physicians ($0.34 per HPV vaccine dose administered) and highest for pediatricians ($5.08 per HPV vaccine dose administered).

“Adequate cost reimbursement by third-party payers is a critical enabling factor for clinicians to continue offering vaccines,” the authors wrote.

The authors concluded that “reimbursement for HPV vaccine costs by private payers is adequate; however, return margins are small for nonpediatric specialties.”
 

CDC, AAP differ in recommendations

In the United States, private insurers use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine list price as a benchmark.

Overall in this study, HPV vaccine cost reimbursement by private payers was at or above the CDC list price of $210.99 but below the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations ($263.74). 

The study found that every $1 increment in return was associated with an increase in HPV vaccine doses administered. That was highest for family physicians at 0.08% per dollar.

The modeling showed that changing the HPV vaccine reimbursement to the AAP-recommended level could translate to “an estimated 18,643 additional HPV vaccine doses administrated by pediatricians, 4,041 additional doses by family physicians, and 433 doses by ‘other’ specialties in 2017-2018.”

The authors noted that U.S. vaccination coverage has improved in recent years but initiation and completion rates are lower among privately insured adolescents (4.6% lower for initiation and 2.0% points lower for completion in 2021), compared with adolescents covered under public insurance.

Why the difference among specialties?

Variation in reimbursements might be tied to the ability to negotiate reimbursements for adolescent vaccines, the authors said.

“For instance, pediatricians may be able to negotiate higher cost reimbursement, compared with nonpediatric specialties, given that adolescents constitute a large fraction of their patient volume,” they wrote.

Dr. Zhu and colleagues wrote that it should be noted that HPV vaccine cost reimbursement to family practitioners was considerably less than other specialties and they are barely breaking even though they have the second-highest volume of HPV vaccinations (after pediatricians).

The authors acknowledged that it may not be possible to raise reimbursement to the AAP level, but added that “a reasonable increase that can cover direct and indirect expenses (acquisition cost, storage cost, personnel cost for monitoring inventory, insurance, waste, and lost opportunity costs) will reduce the financial strain on nonpediatric clinicians.” That may encourage clinicians to stock and offer the vaccine.
 

Limitations

The researchers acknowledged several limitations. The models did not account for factors such as vaccination bundling, physicians’ recommendation style or differences in knowledge of the vaccination schedule.

The models were also not able to adjust for whether a clinic had reminder prompts in the electronic health records, the overhead costs of vaccines, or vaccine knowledge or hesitancy on the part of the adolescents’ parents.

Additionally, they used data from one private payer, which limits generalizability.

Researchers identified a sample of adolescents eligible for the HPV vaccine (9-14 years old) enrolled in a large private health insurance plan during 2017-2018. Data from states with universal or universal select vaccine purchasing were excluded. These states included Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, South Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

One coauthor reported receiving a consulting fee from Merck on unrelated projects. Another coauthor has provided consultancy to Value Analytics Labs on unrelated projects. All other authors declared no competing interests.

Family physicians receive less private insurer reimbursement for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine than do pediatricians, according to a new analysis in Family Medicine.

HPV is the most expensive of all routine pediatric vaccines and the reimbursement by third-party payers varies widely. The concerns about HPV reimbursement often appear on clinician surveys.

This study, led by Yenan Zhu, PhD, who was with the department of public health sciences, college of medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, at the time of the research, found that, on average, pediatricians received higher reimbursement ($216.07) for HPV vaccine cost when compared with family physicians ($211.33), internists ($212.97), nurse practitioners ($212.91), and “other” clinicians who administer the vaccine ($213.29) (P values for all comparisons were < .001).

The final sample for this study included 34,247 clinicians.

The net return from vaccine cost reimbursements was lowest for family physicians ($0.34 per HPV vaccine dose administered) and highest for pediatricians ($5.08 per HPV vaccine dose administered).

“Adequate cost reimbursement by third-party payers is a critical enabling factor for clinicians to continue offering vaccines,” the authors wrote.

The authors concluded that “reimbursement for HPV vaccine costs by private payers is adequate; however, return margins are small for nonpediatric specialties.”
 

CDC, AAP differ in recommendations

In the United States, private insurers use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine list price as a benchmark.

Overall in this study, HPV vaccine cost reimbursement by private payers was at or above the CDC list price of $210.99 but below the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations ($263.74). 

The study found that every $1 increment in return was associated with an increase in HPV vaccine doses administered. That was highest for family physicians at 0.08% per dollar.

The modeling showed that changing the HPV vaccine reimbursement to the AAP-recommended level could translate to “an estimated 18,643 additional HPV vaccine doses administrated by pediatricians, 4,041 additional doses by family physicians, and 433 doses by ‘other’ specialties in 2017-2018.”

The authors noted that U.S. vaccination coverage has improved in recent years but initiation and completion rates are lower among privately insured adolescents (4.6% lower for initiation and 2.0% points lower for completion in 2021), compared with adolescents covered under public insurance.

Why the difference among specialties?

Variation in reimbursements might be tied to the ability to negotiate reimbursements for adolescent vaccines, the authors said.

“For instance, pediatricians may be able to negotiate higher cost reimbursement, compared with nonpediatric specialties, given that adolescents constitute a large fraction of their patient volume,” they wrote.

Dr. Zhu and colleagues wrote that it should be noted that HPV vaccine cost reimbursement to family practitioners was considerably less than other specialties and they are barely breaking even though they have the second-highest volume of HPV vaccinations (after pediatricians).

The authors acknowledged that it may not be possible to raise reimbursement to the AAP level, but added that “a reasonable increase that can cover direct and indirect expenses (acquisition cost, storage cost, personnel cost for monitoring inventory, insurance, waste, and lost opportunity costs) will reduce the financial strain on nonpediatric clinicians.” That may encourage clinicians to stock and offer the vaccine.
 

Limitations

The researchers acknowledged several limitations. The models did not account for factors such as vaccination bundling, physicians’ recommendation style or differences in knowledge of the vaccination schedule.

The models were also not able to adjust for whether a clinic had reminder prompts in the electronic health records, the overhead costs of vaccines, or vaccine knowledge or hesitancy on the part of the adolescents’ parents.

Additionally, they used data from one private payer, which limits generalizability.

Researchers identified a sample of adolescents eligible for the HPV vaccine (9-14 years old) enrolled in a large private health insurance plan during 2017-2018. Data from states with universal or universal select vaccine purchasing were excluded. These states included Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, South Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

One coauthor reported receiving a consulting fee from Merck on unrelated projects. Another coauthor has provided consultancy to Value Analytics Labs on unrelated projects. All other authors declared no competing interests.

Family physicians receive less private insurer reimbursement for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine than do pediatricians, according to a new analysis in Family Medicine.

HPV is the most expensive of all routine pediatric vaccines and the reimbursement by third-party payers varies widely. The concerns about HPV reimbursement often appear on clinician surveys.

This study, led by Yenan Zhu, PhD, who was with the department of public health sciences, college of medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, at the time of the research, found that, on average, pediatricians received higher reimbursement ($216.07) for HPV vaccine cost when compared with family physicians ($211.33), internists ($212.97), nurse practitioners ($212.91), and “other” clinicians who administer the vaccine ($213.29) (P values for all comparisons were < .001).

The final sample for this study included 34,247 clinicians.

The net return from vaccine cost reimbursements was lowest for family physicians ($0.34 per HPV vaccine dose administered) and highest for pediatricians ($5.08 per HPV vaccine dose administered).

“Adequate cost reimbursement by third-party payers is a critical enabling factor for clinicians to continue offering vaccines,” the authors wrote.

The authors concluded that “reimbursement for HPV vaccine costs by private payers is adequate; however, return margins are small for nonpediatric specialties.”
 

CDC, AAP differ in recommendations

In the United States, private insurers use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine list price as a benchmark.

Overall in this study, HPV vaccine cost reimbursement by private payers was at or above the CDC list price of $210.99 but below the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations ($263.74). 

The study found that every $1 increment in return was associated with an increase in HPV vaccine doses administered. That was highest for family physicians at 0.08% per dollar.

The modeling showed that changing the HPV vaccine reimbursement to the AAP-recommended level could translate to “an estimated 18,643 additional HPV vaccine doses administrated by pediatricians, 4,041 additional doses by family physicians, and 433 doses by ‘other’ specialties in 2017-2018.”

The authors noted that U.S. vaccination coverage has improved in recent years but initiation and completion rates are lower among privately insured adolescents (4.6% lower for initiation and 2.0% points lower for completion in 2021), compared with adolescents covered under public insurance.

Why the difference among specialties?

Variation in reimbursements might be tied to the ability to negotiate reimbursements for adolescent vaccines, the authors said.

“For instance, pediatricians may be able to negotiate higher cost reimbursement, compared with nonpediatric specialties, given that adolescents constitute a large fraction of their patient volume,” they wrote.

Dr. Zhu and colleagues wrote that it should be noted that HPV vaccine cost reimbursement to family practitioners was considerably less than other specialties and they are barely breaking even though they have the second-highest volume of HPV vaccinations (after pediatricians).

The authors acknowledged that it may not be possible to raise reimbursement to the AAP level, but added that “a reasonable increase that can cover direct and indirect expenses (acquisition cost, storage cost, personnel cost for monitoring inventory, insurance, waste, and lost opportunity costs) will reduce the financial strain on nonpediatric clinicians.” That may encourage clinicians to stock and offer the vaccine.
 

Limitations

The researchers acknowledged several limitations. The models did not account for factors such as vaccination bundling, physicians’ recommendation style or differences in knowledge of the vaccination schedule.

The models were also not able to adjust for whether a clinic had reminder prompts in the electronic health records, the overhead costs of vaccines, or vaccine knowledge or hesitancy on the part of the adolescents’ parents.

Additionally, they used data from one private payer, which limits generalizability.

Researchers identified a sample of adolescents eligible for the HPV vaccine (9-14 years old) enrolled in a large private health insurance plan during 2017-2018. Data from states with universal or universal select vaccine purchasing were excluded. These states included Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, South Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

One coauthor reported receiving a consulting fee from Merck on unrelated projects. Another coauthor has provided consultancy to Value Analytics Labs on unrelated projects. All other authors declared no competing interests.

In patients aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis over 4 weeks, according to results from a pair of phase two studies.

“Limited topical treatments are approved for children younger than 12 years old with psoriasis,” researchers led by Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, wrote in their abstract. The results were presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Roflumilast cream 0.3% (Zoryve) is a once-daily, topical nonsteroidal treatment from Arcutis Biotherapeutics. A phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2022 for mild, moderate and severe psoriasis in individuals aged 12 and older, including intertriginous psoriasis.

For the analysis, Dr. Hebert, chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, and colleagues conducted two 4-week, phase 2, open-label safety studies of roflumilast cream 0.3%.

One, study 216, enrolled 10 children aged 2-5, and all but one were Black. The other, study 215, enrolled 20 children aged 6-11, and half were Black and nearly half were White. At baseline, patients had 2% or greater body surface area (BSA) involvement and an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of at least mild.

Caregivers applied roflumilast cream to all affected areas once daily for 28 days. The researchers collected pharmacokinetic samples at week 2 and week 4. The primary endpoints were pharmacokinetic, safety, and tolerability.

Efficacy was evaluated as exploratory endpoints: An IGA of clear or almost clear plus a 2-grade or more improvement from baseline, a 50% or greater improvement and a 75% or greater improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-50 and PASI-75), a 4-point or greater reduction in the Worst Itch–Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) in patients with a baseline score of 4 or greater, a mean change from baseline in BSA, and improvement in the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI).

At baseline, the mean BSA was similar for patients enrolled in studies 216 and 215 (9.6% and 8.8%, respectively), and 80% of all patients had baseline IGA of moderate. By week 2, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose plasma concentrations among patients in the younger group were 2.15 and 22.4 ng/mL, compared with 3.15 and 28.9 ng/mL among those in the older group. At week 4, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose concentrations were 2.04 and 15.8 ng/mL in the younger group (study 216), compared with 1.68 and 15.7 ng/mL in the older group (study 215).

As for efficacy, 90% and 40% of patients in studies 216 and 215 achieved IGA success at week 4, respectively, while 90% and 50% achieved PASI-75, 90% and 40% achieved WI-NRS success, and the mean BSA reductions at week 4 were 79.1% and 44.4%. Meanwhile, one younger patient in study 216 reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of headache, which was considered mild, while four older patients in study 215 reported 8 TEAEs, which were considered mild and ranged from back pain to nasal congestion.

“The rapid onset of action was surprising but exceedingly rewarding for the subjects enrolled in the study,” Dr. Hebert told this news organization after the meeting. “The PASI scores and itch scores were markedly improved at the end of the 4-week clinical trial. Patient and parents alike were pleased to use a steroid-free option with once-daily application and rapid onset of action to help control plaque psoriasis.”

In the poster abstract, she and her coauthors concluded that “under maximal use conditions in children aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream 0.3% was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis with measured improvements in IGA score, PASI score, BSA involvement, CDLQI, and WI-NRS. Overall, pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and efficacy in patients aged 2-11 years were consistent with prior results in adults and adolescents.”

The study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Hebert reported that she is an investigator for Arcutis. About half the coauthors are employees of Arcutis, and the other half disclosed grants, research funding and/or honoraria from the company. Research grants from the company for this study were paid to the McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas.

In patients aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis over 4 weeks, according to results from a pair of phase two studies.

“Limited topical treatments are approved for children younger than 12 years old with psoriasis,” researchers led by Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, wrote in their abstract. The results were presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Roflumilast cream 0.3% (Zoryve) is a once-daily, topical nonsteroidal treatment from Arcutis Biotherapeutics. A phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2022 for mild, moderate and severe psoriasis in individuals aged 12 and older, including intertriginous psoriasis.

For the analysis, Dr. Hebert, chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, and colleagues conducted two 4-week, phase 2, open-label safety studies of roflumilast cream 0.3%.

One, study 216, enrolled 10 children aged 2-5, and all but one were Black. The other, study 215, enrolled 20 children aged 6-11, and half were Black and nearly half were White. At baseline, patients had 2% or greater body surface area (BSA) involvement and an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of at least mild.

Caregivers applied roflumilast cream to all affected areas once daily for 28 days. The researchers collected pharmacokinetic samples at week 2 and week 4. The primary endpoints were pharmacokinetic, safety, and tolerability.

Efficacy was evaluated as exploratory endpoints: An IGA of clear or almost clear plus a 2-grade or more improvement from baseline, a 50% or greater improvement and a 75% or greater improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-50 and PASI-75), a 4-point or greater reduction in the Worst Itch–Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) in patients with a baseline score of 4 or greater, a mean change from baseline in BSA, and improvement in the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI).

At baseline, the mean BSA was similar for patients enrolled in studies 216 and 215 (9.6% and 8.8%, respectively), and 80% of all patients had baseline IGA of moderate. By week 2, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose plasma concentrations among patients in the younger group were 2.15 and 22.4 ng/mL, compared with 3.15 and 28.9 ng/mL among those in the older group. At week 4, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose concentrations were 2.04 and 15.8 ng/mL in the younger group (study 216), compared with 1.68 and 15.7 ng/mL in the older group (study 215).

As for efficacy, 90% and 40% of patients in studies 216 and 215 achieved IGA success at week 4, respectively, while 90% and 50% achieved PASI-75, 90% and 40% achieved WI-NRS success, and the mean BSA reductions at week 4 were 79.1% and 44.4%. Meanwhile, one younger patient in study 216 reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of headache, which was considered mild, while four older patients in study 215 reported 8 TEAEs, which were considered mild and ranged from back pain to nasal congestion.

“The rapid onset of action was surprising but exceedingly rewarding for the subjects enrolled in the study,” Dr. Hebert told this news organization after the meeting. “The PASI scores and itch scores were markedly improved at the end of the 4-week clinical trial. Patient and parents alike were pleased to use a steroid-free option with once-daily application and rapid onset of action to help control plaque psoriasis.”

In the poster abstract, she and her coauthors concluded that “under maximal use conditions in children aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream 0.3% was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis with measured improvements in IGA score, PASI score, BSA involvement, CDLQI, and WI-NRS. Overall, pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and efficacy in patients aged 2-11 years were consistent with prior results in adults and adolescents.”

The study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Hebert reported that she is an investigator for Arcutis. About half the coauthors are employees of Arcutis, and the other half disclosed grants, research funding and/or honoraria from the company. Research grants from the company for this study were paid to the McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas.

In patients aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis over 4 weeks, according to results from a pair of phase two studies.

“Limited topical treatments are approved for children younger than 12 years old with psoriasis,” researchers led by Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, wrote in their abstract. The results were presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Roflumilast cream 0.3% (Zoryve) is a once-daily, topical nonsteroidal treatment from Arcutis Biotherapeutics. A phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2022 for mild, moderate and severe psoriasis in individuals aged 12 and older, including intertriginous psoriasis.

For the analysis, Dr. Hebert, chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, and colleagues conducted two 4-week, phase 2, open-label safety studies of roflumilast cream 0.3%.

One, study 216, enrolled 10 children aged 2-5, and all but one were Black. The other, study 215, enrolled 20 children aged 6-11, and half were Black and nearly half were White. At baseline, patients had 2% or greater body surface area (BSA) involvement and an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of at least mild.

Caregivers applied roflumilast cream to all affected areas once daily for 28 days. The researchers collected pharmacokinetic samples at week 2 and week 4. The primary endpoints were pharmacokinetic, safety, and tolerability.

Efficacy was evaluated as exploratory endpoints: An IGA of clear or almost clear plus a 2-grade or more improvement from baseline, a 50% or greater improvement and a 75% or greater improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-50 and PASI-75), a 4-point or greater reduction in the Worst Itch–Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) in patients with a baseline score of 4 or greater, a mean change from baseline in BSA, and improvement in the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI).

At baseline, the mean BSA was similar for patients enrolled in studies 216 and 215 (9.6% and 8.8%, respectively), and 80% of all patients had baseline IGA of moderate. By week 2, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose plasma concentrations among patients in the younger group were 2.15 and 22.4 ng/mL, compared with 3.15 and 28.9 ng/mL among those in the older group. At week 4, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose concentrations were 2.04 and 15.8 ng/mL in the younger group (study 216), compared with 1.68 and 15.7 ng/mL in the older group (study 215).

As for efficacy, 90% and 40% of patients in studies 216 and 215 achieved IGA success at week 4, respectively, while 90% and 50% achieved PASI-75, 90% and 40% achieved WI-NRS success, and the mean BSA reductions at week 4 were 79.1% and 44.4%. Meanwhile, one younger patient in study 216 reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of headache, which was considered mild, while four older patients in study 215 reported 8 TEAEs, which were considered mild and ranged from back pain to nasal congestion.

“The rapid onset of action was surprising but exceedingly rewarding for the subjects enrolled in the study,” Dr. Hebert told this news organization after the meeting. “The PASI scores and itch scores were markedly improved at the end of the 4-week clinical trial. Patient and parents alike were pleased to use a steroid-free option with once-daily application and rapid onset of action to help control plaque psoriasis.”

In the poster abstract, she and her coauthors concluded that “under maximal use conditions in children aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream 0.3% was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis with measured improvements in IGA score, PASI score, BSA involvement, CDLQI, and WI-NRS. Overall, pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and efficacy in patients aged 2-11 years were consistent with prior results in adults and adolescents.”

The study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Hebert reported that she is an investigator for Arcutis. About half the coauthors are employees of Arcutis, and the other half disclosed grants, research funding and/or honoraria from the company. Research grants from the company for this study were paid to the McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas.

Chronic pain, and back pain in particular, is among the most frequent concerns for patients in the primary care setting. Roughly 8% of adults in the United States say they suffer from chronic low back pain, and many of them say the pain is significant enough to impair their ability to move, work, and otherwise enjoy life. All this, despite decades of research and countless millions in funding to find the optimal approach to treating chronic pain.

As the United States crawls out of the opioid epidemic, a group of pain specialists is hoping to identify effective, personalized approaches to managing back pain. Daniel Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology, internal medicine, and psychiatry at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is helping lead the BEST trial. With projected enrollment of nearly 800 patients, BEST will be the largest federally funded clinical trial of interventions to treat chronic low back pain.

In an interview, Dr. Clauw spoke about the ongoing trial and the state of research into chronic pain generally. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

What are your thoughts on the current state of primary care physicians’ understanding and management of pain?

Primary care physicians need a lot of help in demystifying the diagnosis and treatment of any kind of pain, but back pain is a really good place to start. When it comes to back pain, most primary care physicians are not any more knowledgeable than a layperson.

What has the opioid debacle-cum-tragedy taught you about pain management, particular as regards people with chronic pain?

I don’t feel opioids should ever be used to treat chronic low back pain. The few long-term studies that have been performed using opioids for longer than 3 months suggest that they often make pain worse rather than just failing to make pain better – and we know they are associated with a significantly increased all-cause mortality with increased deaths from myocardial infarction, accidents, and suicides, in addition to overdose.

Given how many patients experience back pain, how did we come to the point at which primary care physicians are so ill equipped?

We’ve had terrible pain curricula in medical schools. To give you an example: I’m one of the leading pain experts in the world and I’m not allowed to teach our medical students their pain curriculum. The students learn about neurophysiology and the anatomy of the nerves, not what’s relevant in pain.

This is notorious in medical school: Curricula are almost impossible to modify and change. So it starts with poor training in medical school. And then, regardless of what education they do or don’t get in medical school, a lot of their education about pain management is through our residencies – mainly in inpatient settings, where you’re really seeing the management of acute pain and not the management of chronic pain.

People get more accustomed to managing acute pain, where opioids are a reasonable option. It’s just that when you start managing subacute or chronic pain, opioids don’t work as well.

The other big problem is that historically, most people trained in medicine think that if you have pain in your elbow, there’s got to be something wrong in your elbow. This third mechanism of pain, central sensitization – or nociplastic pain – the kind of pain that we see in fibromyalgia, headache, and low back pain, where the pain is coming from the brain – that’s confusing to people. People can have pain without any damage or inflammation to that region of the body.

Physicians are trained that if there’s pain, there’s something wrong and we have to do surgery or there’s been some trauma. Most chronic pain is none of that. There’s a big disconnect between how people are trained, and then when they go out and are seeing a tremendous number of people with chronic pain.
 

What are the different types of pain, and how should they inform clinicians’ understanding about what approaches might work for managing their patients in pain?

The way the central nervous system responds to pain is analogous to the loudness of an electric guitar. You can make an electric guitar louder either by strumming the strings harder or by turning up the amplifier. For many people with fibromyalgia, low back pain, and endometriosis, for example, the problem is really more that the amplifier is turned up too high rather than its being that the guitar is strummed too strongly. That kind of pain where the pain is not due to anatomic damage or inflammation is particularly flummoxing for providers.

Can you explain the design of the new study?

It’s a 13-site study looking at four treatments: enhanced self-care, cognitive-behavioral therapy, physical therapy, and duloxetine. It’s a big precision medicine trial, trying to take everything we’ve learned and putting it all into one big study.

We’re using a SMART design, which randomizes people to two of those treatments, unless they are very much improved from the first treatment. To be eligible for the trial, you have to be able to be randomized to three of the four treatments, and people can’t choose which of the four they get.

We give them one of those treatments for 12 weeks, and at the end of 12 weeks we make the call – “Did you respond or not respond?” – and then we go back to the phenotypic data we collected at the beginning of that trial and say, “What information at baseline that we collected predicts that someone is going to respond better to duloxetine or worse to duloxetine?” And then we create the phenotype that responds best to each of those four treatments.

None of our treatments works so well that someone doesn’t end up getting randomized to a second treatment. About 85% of people so far need a second treatment because they still have enough pain that they want more relief. But the nice thing about that is we’ve already done all the functional brain imaging and all these really expensive and time-consuming things.

We’re hoping to have around 700-800 people total in this trial, which means that around 170 people will get randomized to each of the four initial treatments. No one’s ever done a study that has functional brain imaging and all these other things in it with more than 80 or 100 people. The scale of this is totally unprecedented.
 

Given that the individual therapies don’t appear to be all that successful on their own, what is your goal?

The primary aim is to match the phenotypic characteristics of a patient with chronic low back pain with treatment response to each of these four treatments. So at the end, we can give clinicians information on which of the patients is going to respond to physical therapy, for instance.

Right now, about one out of three people respond to most treatments for pain. We think by doing a trial like this, we can take treatments that work in one out of three people and make them work in one out of two or two out of three people just by using them in the right people.
 

How do you differentiate between these types of pain in your study?

We phenotype people by asking them a number of questions. We also do brain imaging, look at their back with MRI, test biomechanics, and then give them four different treatments that we know work in groups of people with low back pain.

We think one of the first parts of the phenotype is, do they have pain just in their back? Or do they have pain in their back plus a lot of other body regions? Because the more body regions that people have pain in, the more likely it is that this is an amplifier problem rather than a guitar problem.

Treatments like physical therapy, surgery, and injections are going to work better for people in whom the pain is a guitar problem rather than an amplifier problem. And drugs like duloxetine, which works in the brain, and cognitive-behavioral therapy are going to work a lot better in the people with pain in multiple sites besides the back.
 

To pick up on your metaphor, do any symptoms help clinicians differentiate between the guitar and the amplifier?

Sleep problems, fatigue, memory problems, and mood problems are common in patients with chronic pain and are more common with amplifier pain. Because again, those are all central nervous system problems. And so we see that the people that have anxiety, depression, and a lot of distress are more likely to have this kind of pain.

Does medical imaging help?

There’s a terrible relationship between what you see on an MRI of the back and whether someone has pain or how severe the pain is going to be. There’s always going to be individuals that have a lot of anatomic damage who don’t have any pain because they happen to be on the other end of the continuum from fibromyalgia; they’re actually pain-insensitive people.

What are your thoughts about ketamine as a possible treatment for chronic pain?

I have a mentee who’s doing a ketamine trial. We’re doing psilocybin trials in patients with fibromyalgia. Ketamine is such a dirty drug; it has so many different mechanisms of action. It does have some psychedelic effects, but it also is an NMDA blocker. It really has so many different effects.

I think it’s being thrown around like water in settings where we don’t yet know it to be efficacious. Even the data in treatment-refractory depression are pretty weak, but we’re so desperate to do something for those patients. If you’re trying to harness the psychedelic properties of ketamine, I think there’s other psychedelics that are a lot more interesting, which is why we’re using psilocybin for a subset of patients. Most of us in the pain field think that the psychedelics will work best for the people with chronic pain who have a lot of comorbid psychiatric illness, especially the ones with a lot of trauma. These drugs will allow us therapeutically to get at a lot of these patients with the side-by-side psychotherapy that’s being done as people are getting care in the medicalized setting.
 

Dr. Clauw reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Tonix, Theravance, Zynerba, Samumed, Aptinyx, Daiichi Sankyo, Intec, Regeneron, Teva, Lundbeck, Virios, and Cerephex.

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

Chronic pain, and back pain in particular, is among the most frequent concerns for patients in the primary care setting. Roughly 8% of adults in the United States say they suffer from chronic low back pain, and many of them say the pain is significant enough to impair their ability to move, work, and otherwise enjoy life. All this, despite decades of research and countless millions in funding to find the optimal approach to treating chronic pain.

As the United States crawls out of the opioid epidemic, a group of pain specialists is hoping to identify effective, personalized approaches to managing back pain. Daniel Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology, internal medicine, and psychiatry at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is helping lead the BEST trial. With projected enrollment of nearly 800 patients, BEST will be the largest federally funded clinical trial of interventions to treat chronic low back pain.

In an interview, Dr. Clauw spoke about the ongoing trial and the state of research into chronic pain generally. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

What are your thoughts on the current state of primary care physicians’ understanding and management of pain?

Primary care physicians need a lot of help in demystifying the diagnosis and treatment of any kind of pain, but back pain is a really good place to start. When it comes to back pain, most primary care physicians are not any more knowledgeable than a layperson.

What has the opioid debacle-cum-tragedy taught you about pain management, particular as regards people with chronic pain?

I don’t feel opioids should ever be used to treat chronic low back pain. The few long-term studies that have been performed using opioids for longer than 3 months suggest that they often make pain worse rather than just failing to make pain better – and we know they are associated with a significantly increased all-cause mortality with increased deaths from myocardial infarction, accidents, and suicides, in addition to overdose.

Given how many patients experience back pain, how did we come to the point at which primary care physicians are so ill equipped?

We’ve had terrible pain curricula in medical schools. To give you an example: I’m one of the leading pain experts in the world and I’m not allowed to teach our medical students their pain curriculum. The students learn about neurophysiology and the anatomy of the nerves, not what’s relevant in pain.

This is notorious in medical school: Curricula are almost impossible to modify and change. So it starts with poor training in medical school. And then, regardless of what education they do or don’t get in medical school, a lot of their education about pain management is through our residencies – mainly in inpatient settings, where you’re really seeing the management of acute pain and not the management of chronic pain.

People get more accustomed to managing acute pain, where opioids are a reasonable option. It’s just that when you start managing subacute or chronic pain, opioids don’t work as well.

The other big problem is that historically, most people trained in medicine think that if you have pain in your elbow, there’s got to be something wrong in your elbow. This third mechanism of pain, central sensitization – or nociplastic pain – the kind of pain that we see in fibromyalgia, headache, and low back pain, where the pain is coming from the brain – that’s confusing to people. People can have pain without any damage or inflammation to that region of the body.

Physicians are trained that if there’s pain, there’s something wrong and we have to do surgery or there’s been some trauma. Most chronic pain is none of that. There’s a big disconnect between how people are trained, and then when they go out and are seeing a tremendous number of people with chronic pain.
 

What are the different types of pain, and how should they inform clinicians’ understanding about what approaches might work for managing their patients in pain?

The way the central nervous system responds to pain is analogous to the loudness of an electric guitar. You can make an electric guitar louder either by strumming the strings harder or by turning up the amplifier. For many people with fibromyalgia, low back pain, and endometriosis, for example, the problem is really more that the amplifier is turned up too high rather than its being that the guitar is strummed too strongly. That kind of pain where the pain is not due to anatomic damage or inflammation is particularly flummoxing for providers.

Can you explain the design of the new study?

It’s a 13-site study looking at four treatments: enhanced self-care, cognitive-behavioral therapy, physical therapy, and duloxetine. It’s a big precision medicine trial, trying to take everything we’ve learned and putting it all into one big study.

We’re using a SMART design, which randomizes people to two of those treatments, unless they are very much improved from the first treatment. To be eligible for the trial, you have to be able to be randomized to three of the four treatments, and people can’t choose which of the four they get.

We give them one of those treatments for 12 weeks, and at the end of 12 weeks we make the call – “Did you respond or not respond?” – and then we go back to the phenotypic data we collected at the beginning of that trial and say, “What information at baseline that we collected predicts that someone is going to respond better to duloxetine or worse to duloxetine?” And then we create the phenotype that responds best to each of those four treatments.

None of our treatments works so well that someone doesn’t end up getting randomized to a second treatment. About 85% of people so far need a second treatment because they still have enough pain that they want more relief. But the nice thing about that is we’ve already done all the functional brain imaging and all these really expensive and time-consuming things.

We’re hoping to have around 700-800 people total in this trial, which means that around 170 people will get randomized to each of the four initial treatments. No one’s ever done a study that has functional brain imaging and all these other things in it with more than 80 or 100 people. The scale of this is totally unprecedented.
 

Given that the individual therapies don’t appear to be all that successful on their own, what is your goal?

The primary aim is to match the phenotypic characteristics of a patient with chronic low back pain with treatment response to each of these four treatments. So at the end, we can give clinicians information on which of the patients is going to respond to physical therapy, for instance.

Right now, about one out of three people respond to most treatments for pain. We think by doing a trial like this, we can take treatments that work in one out of three people and make them work in one out of two or two out of three people just by using them in the right people.
 

How do you differentiate between these types of pain in your study?

We phenotype people by asking them a number of questions. We also do brain imaging, look at their back with MRI, test biomechanics, and then give them four different treatments that we know work in groups of people with low back pain.

We think one of the first parts of the phenotype is, do they have pain just in their back? Or do they have pain in their back plus a lot of other body regions? Because the more body regions that people have pain in, the more likely it is that this is an amplifier problem rather than a guitar problem.

Treatments like physical therapy, surgery, and injections are going to work better for people in whom the pain is a guitar problem rather than an amplifier problem. And drugs like duloxetine, which works in the brain, and cognitive-behavioral therapy are going to work a lot better in the people with pain in multiple sites besides the back.
 

To pick up on your metaphor, do any symptoms help clinicians differentiate between the guitar and the amplifier?

Sleep problems, fatigue, memory problems, and mood problems are common in patients with chronic pain and are more common with amplifier pain. Because again, those are all central nervous system problems. And so we see that the people that have anxiety, depression, and a lot of distress are more likely to have this kind of pain.

Does medical imaging help?

There’s a terrible relationship between what you see on an MRI of the back and whether someone has pain or how severe the pain is going to be. There’s always going to be individuals that have a lot of anatomic damage who don’t have any pain because they happen to be on the other end of the continuum from fibromyalgia; they’re actually pain-insensitive people.

What are your thoughts about ketamine as a possible treatment for chronic pain?

I have a mentee who’s doing a ketamine trial. We’re doing psilocybin trials in patients with fibromyalgia. Ketamine is such a dirty drug; it has so many different mechanisms of action. It does have some psychedelic effects, but it also is an NMDA blocker. It really has so many different effects.

I think it’s being thrown around like water in settings where we don’t yet know it to be efficacious. Even the data in treatment-refractory depression are pretty weak, but we’re so desperate to do something for those patients. If you’re trying to harness the psychedelic properties of ketamine, I think there’s other psychedelics that are a lot more interesting, which is why we’re using psilocybin for a subset of patients. Most of us in the pain field think that the psychedelics will work best for the people with chronic pain who have a lot of comorbid psychiatric illness, especially the ones with a lot of trauma. These drugs will allow us therapeutically to get at a lot of these patients with the side-by-side psychotherapy that’s being done as people are getting care in the medicalized setting.
 

Dr. Clauw reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Tonix, Theravance, Zynerba, Samumed, Aptinyx, Daiichi Sankyo, Intec, Regeneron, Teva, Lundbeck, Virios, and Cerephex.

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

Chronic pain, and back pain in particular, is among the most frequent concerns for patients in the primary care setting. Roughly 8% of adults in the United States say they suffer from chronic low back pain, and many of them say the pain is significant enough to impair their ability to move, work, and otherwise enjoy life. All this, despite decades of research and countless millions in funding to find the optimal approach to treating chronic pain.

As the United States crawls out of the opioid epidemic, a group of pain specialists is hoping to identify effective, personalized approaches to managing back pain. Daniel Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology, internal medicine, and psychiatry at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is helping lead the BEST trial. With projected enrollment of nearly 800 patients, BEST will be the largest federally funded clinical trial of interventions to treat chronic low back pain.

In an interview, Dr. Clauw spoke about the ongoing trial and the state of research into chronic pain generally. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

What are your thoughts on the current state of primary care physicians’ understanding and management of pain?

Primary care physicians need a lot of help in demystifying the diagnosis and treatment of any kind of pain, but back pain is a really good place to start. When it comes to back pain, most primary care physicians are not any more knowledgeable than a layperson.

What has the opioid debacle-cum-tragedy taught you about pain management, particular as regards people with chronic pain?

I don’t feel opioids should ever be used to treat chronic low back pain. The few long-term studies that have been performed using opioids for longer than 3 months suggest that they often make pain worse rather than just failing to make pain better – and we know they are associated with a significantly increased all-cause mortality with increased deaths from myocardial infarction, accidents, and suicides, in addition to overdose.

Given how many patients experience back pain, how did we come to the point at which primary care physicians are so ill equipped?

We’ve had terrible pain curricula in medical schools. To give you an example: I’m one of the leading pain experts in the world and I’m not allowed to teach our medical students their pain curriculum. The students learn about neurophysiology and the anatomy of the nerves, not what’s relevant in pain.

This is notorious in medical school: Curricula are almost impossible to modify and change. So it starts with poor training in medical school. And then, regardless of what education they do or don’t get in medical school, a lot of their education about pain management is through our residencies – mainly in inpatient settings, where you’re really seeing the management of acute pain and not the management of chronic pain.

People get more accustomed to managing acute pain, where opioids are a reasonable option. It’s just that when you start managing subacute or chronic pain, opioids don’t work as well.

The other big problem is that historically, most people trained in medicine think that if you have pain in your elbow, there’s got to be something wrong in your elbow. This third mechanism of pain, central sensitization – or nociplastic pain – the kind of pain that we see in fibromyalgia, headache, and low back pain, where the pain is coming from the brain – that’s confusing to people. People can have pain without any damage or inflammation to that region of the body.

Physicians are trained that if there’s pain, there’s something wrong and we have to do surgery or there’s been some trauma. Most chronic pain is none of that. There’s a big disconnect between how people are trained, and then when they go out and are seeing a tremendous number of people with chronic pain.
 

What are the different types of pain, and how should they inform clinicians’ understanding about what approaches might work for managing their patients in pain?

The way the central nervous system responds to pain is analogous to the loudness of an electric guitar. You can make an electric guitar louder either by strumming the strings harder or by turning up the amplifier. For many people with fibromyalgia, low back pain, and endometriosis, for example, the problem is really more that the amplifier is turned up too high rather than its being that the guitar is strummed too strongly. That kind of pain where the pain is not due to anatomic damage or inflammation is particularly flummoxing for providers.

Can you explain the design of the new study?

It’s a 13-site study looking at four treatments: enhanced self-care, cognitive-behavioral therapy, physical therapy, and duloxetine. It’s a big precision medicine trial, trying to take everything we’ve learned and putting it all into one big study.

We’re using a SMART design, which randomizes people to two of those treatments, unless they are very much improved from the first treatment. To be eligible for the trial, you have to be able to be randomized to three of the four treatments, and people can’t choose which of the four they get.

We give them one of those treatments for 12 weeks, and at the end of 12 weeks we make the call – “Did you respond or not respond?” – and then we go back to the phenotypic data we collected at the beginning of that trial and say, “What information at baseline that we collected predicts that someone is going to respond better to duloxetine or worse to duloxetine?” And then we create the phenotype that responds best to each of those four treatments.

None of our treatments works so well that someone doesn’t end up getting randomized to a second treatment. About 85% of people so far need a second treatment because they still have enough pain that they want more relief. But the nice thing about that is we’ve already done all the functional brain imaging and all these really expensive and time-consuming things.

We’re hoping to have around 700-800 people total in this trial, which means that around 170 people will get randomized to each of the four initial treatments. No one’s ever done a study that has functional brain imaging and all these other things in it with more than 80 or 100 people. The scale of this is totally unprecedented.
 

Given that the individual therapies don’t appear to be all that successful on their own, what is your goal?

The primary aim is to match the phenotypic characteristics of a patient with chronic low back pain with treatment response to each of these four treatments. So at the end, we can give clinicians information on which of the patients is going to respond to physical therapy, for instance.

Right now, about one out of three people respond to most treatments for pain. We think by doing a trial like this, we can take treatments that work in one out of three people and make them work in one out of two or two out of three people just by using them in the right people.
 

How do you differentiate between these types of pain in your study?

We phenotype people by asking them a number of questions. We also do brain imaging, look at their back with MRI, test biomechanics, and then give them four different treatments that we know work in groups of people with low back pain.

We think one of the first parts of the phenotype is, do they have pain just in their back? Or do they have pain in their back plus a lot of other body regions? Because the more body regions that people have pain in, the more likely it is that this is an amplifier problem rather than a guitar problem.

Treatments like physical therapy, surgery, and injections are going to work better for people in whom the pain is a guitar problem rather than an amplifier problem. And drugs like duloxetine, which works in the brain, and cognitive-behavioral therapy are going to work a lot better in the people with pain in multiple sites besides the back.
 

To pick up on your metaphor, do any symptoms help clinicians differentiate between the guitar and the amplifier?

Sleep problems, fatigue, memory problems, and mood problems are common in patients with chronic pain and are more common with amplifier pain. Because again, those are all central nervous system problems. And so we see that the people that have anxiety, depression, and a lot of distress are more likely to have this kind of pain.

Does medical imaging help?

There’s a terrible relationship between what you see on an MRI of the back and whether someone has pain or how severe the pain is going to be. There’s always going to be individuals that have a lot of anatomic damage who don’t have any pain because they happen to be on the other end of the continuum from fibromyalgia; they’re actually pain-insensitive people.

What are your thoughts about ketamine as a possible treatment for chronic pain?

I have a mentee who’s doing a ketamine trial. We’re doing psilocybin trials in patients with fibromyalgia. Ketamine is such a dirty drug; it has so many different mechanisms of action. It does have some psychedelic effects, but it also is an NMDA blocker. It really has so many different effects.

I think it’s being thrown around like water in settings where we don’t yet know it to be efficacious. Even the data in treatment-refractory depression are pretty weak, but we’re so desperate to do something for those patients. If you’re trying to harness the psychedelic properties of ketamine, I think there’s other psychedelics that are a lot more interesting, which is why we’re using psilocybin for a subset of patients. Most of us in the pain field think that the psychedelics will work best for the people with chronic pain who have a lot of comorbid psychiatric illness, especially the ones with a lot of trauma. These drugs will allow us therapeutically to get at a lot of these patients with the side-by-side psychotherapy that’s being done as people are getting care in the medicalized setting.
 

Dr. Clauw reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Tonix, Theravance, Zynerba, Samumed, Aptinyx, Daiichi Sankyo, Intec, Regeneron, Teva, Lundbeck, Virios, and Cerephex.

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

A petition demanding an end to maintenance of certification (MOC) requirements from the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) gained traction among oncologists in late July, garnering nearly 7,500 signatures in 10 days.

The MOC program, “originally intended to uphold the standards of medical practice and promote lifelong learning, has evolved into a complex and time-consuming process that poses significant challenges to practicing physicians,” according to the petition launched on July 21 by hematologist-oncologist Aaron Goodman, MD. The MOC “has become burdensome, costly, and lacks evidence to support its effectiveness in improving patient care or physician competence.”

Dr. Goodman, assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego, is scheduled to debate the matter with ABIM President and Chief Executive Officer Richard J. Baron, MD, during a Healthcare Unfiltered podcast recorded and hosted by Chadi Nabhan, MD. In the August 3 podcast, Dr. Goodman and Dr. Baron will respond to questions posed via tweets, Dr. Goodman said.

A Twitter survey posted by Dr. Nabhan in advance of the debate asked physicians whether the cost of the MOC, the time required for testing, or data sharing by ABIM is most bothersome. Of 158 respondents, 71% selected “all of the above.”
 

ABIM touts MOC ‘values’  

The ABIM requires an initial certification assessment that costs thousands of dollars and must be repeated every 10 years. The annual MOC requirements, which were tacked on within the last decade, involve tests that cost $220 for the first certificate a physician holds and about $120 for each subsequent one.

Over the course of his career, Dr. Goodman estimates he will spend over $40,000 to maintain his three ABIM boards in medicine, hematology, and oncology.

The ABIM did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the petition and debate, but a page on the ABIM website touts the “values of MOC” and says there is “compelling evidence” that the MOC improves the value of care without sacrificing quality and that board-certified physicians earn more.

According to the website, the MOC program “provides doctors with a pathway to know that they are staying current in the medical knowledge they use to treat patients and make important care decisions daily.” The ABIM also says that the “program has evolved to include new assessment options and an increased recognition of the work doctors do every day” and that the ABIM “continuously collaborates with doctors to increase the relevance of exams.”

Aniruddha Singh, MD, also weighed in on the value of MOC in a July 13 ABIM blog post. Dr. Singh is a member of this year’s Cardiovascular Disease Traditional, 10-Year MOC Exam Approval Committee and program director for the General Cardiovascular Fellowship at Drexel University College of Medicine, Reading, Pa.

In his post, Dr. Singh states that the MOC “facilitates a broader perspective on a range of topics [and] enables me to delve deeper into relevant areas, fostering a comprehensive understanding that enhances my quality of care.”
 

Growing resistance

Although Dr. Goodman acknowledged the merit of board testing every decade or so, physicians already do continuing medical education (CME) to keep up-to-date on their specialties. Dr. Goodman believes that most physicians, other than those who work for ABIM, would agree that MOC is a waste of time and money.

“It’s a pain-in-the-ass module that you sit at home and Google – it’s not really any sort of assessment,” nor does it help protect the public, said Goodman. The MOC is ultimately “just a money grab.”

According to the ABIM’s website, the nonprofit has net assets of more than $73.2 million as of June 30, 2022. Last year, the ABIM’s revenue hit $71.9 million, with more than half coming from MOC fees and 48% from certification.

The ABIM also says it spent $58 million in 2022. A breakdown shows about 63% of that money went to administering (28%), researching (13%), overseeing (4%), and developing (18%) the certification and MOC exams and program. ABIM’s CEO Dr. Baron makes about $1.2 million a year, according to recent tax filings. The COO makes about $550,000 from the ABIM and “related” organizations.

Fed up with the requirements and cost, Dr. Goodman decided to launch the petition to see if others agreed and how many.

His petition, addressed to the ABIM, expresses “deep dissatisfaction” with the ABIM MOC program and “respectfully request[s] that the ABIM take immediate action to eliminate the MOC program and adopt alternative, less burdensome methods of ensuring physician competence and continuous professional development.” Dr. Goodman, alongside Vinay Prasad, MD, a hematologist-oncologist and professor at the University of California, San Francisco, reiterated these points in a piece highlighting the petition.

Shortly before the petition went public but after he had been vocal on Twitter about issues with the MOC, Dr. Goodman said he received an invitation to join the ABIM Board of Governors. “My hypothesis is they are trying to ‘friend’ me, so I get credentialed, and they get me to stop yelling. It just made me more pissed off. I don’t want to be any part of that,” he said.

H. Jack West, MD, a thoracic oncologist and associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, signed the petition without hesitation.

Dr. West agreed with Dr. Goodman that the 10-year ABIM recertification is sufficient. He also denounced the ABIM testing process, costs, and content, saying he found the questions “so ambiguous that even knowing everything about the subject, I found the assignment of the ‘best’ answer to be a Talmudic interpretation.”

“The questions seem to have a sadistic level of complexity and ambiguity baked into them, rather than being a direct assessment of knowledge,” he explained.

The ABIM is also “completely opaque” about their process of developing questions and defining answers, Dr. West said. And “the ABIM offers no data to support that their processes improve any clinical outcomes.”

Yet, the MOC “forces physicians to spend several hundred dollars every year as well as an incredible amount of their time jumping through hoops at the behest of ABIM to satisfy these imposed requirements,” Dr. West said. The time spent satisfying these requirements is also “strip-mining physician morale” by taking time away from families and personal lives.

As for ABIM finances, Dr. West said the organization offers no justification for “the extortionate costs imposed by this de facto monopoly.”

The glimpses we do see, however, “indicate an organization spending on a lavish condominium and offering conspicuously generous remuneration to its own leadership. The only thing that is assured by the ABIM’s MOC program is that it is wildly profitable for the ABIM,” he added.

In a tweet, he called on physicians to take a stand: “If you think MOC is good, say it. Otherwise, if you don’t sign [the petition], ask yourself why you don’t have the courage & character to do so.”
 

Next steps?

Dr. Goodman’s petition lays out potential alternatives to the MOC that “would better support physician competence and continuing education without imposing unnecessary hurdles.”

Alternatives include encouraging voluntary, accessible, and evidence-based CME programs to promote lifelong learning among physicians, establishing a system for peer evaluation and feedback, encouraging self-assessment, and fostering a culture of continuous quality improvement.

Dr. Goodman’s goal is to garner at least 10,000 signatures and reach out to credentialing committees around the country with the results to promote alternatives to MOC. As of the morning of August 1, the petition had more than 7,900 signatures.

He also gives Dr. Baron credit for his willingness to have a conversation about the MOC and intends for that conversation to be a civil, respectful debate.

“I can’t think of anything he could say that will convince me [MOC] is the right thing to do, but we’ll see what he has to say,” Dr. Goodman said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A petition demanding an end to maintenance of certification (MOC) requirements from the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) gained traction among oncologists in late July, garnering nearly 7,500 signatures in 10 days.

The MOC program, “originally intended to uphold the standards of medical practice and promote lifelong learning, has evolved into a complex and time-consuming process that poses significant challenges to practicing physicians,” according to the petition launched on July 21 by hematologist-oncologist Aaron Goodman, MD. The MOC “has become burdensome, costly, and lacks evidence to support its effectiveness in improving patient care or physician competence.”

Dr. Goodman, assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego, is scheduled to debate the matter with ABIM President and Chief Executive Officer Richard J. Baron, MD, during a Healthcare Unfiltered podcast recorded and hosted by Chadi Nabhan, MD. In the August 3 podcast, Dr. Goodman and Dr. Baron will respond to questions posed via tweets, Dr. Goodman said.

A Twitter survey posted by Dr. Nabhan in advance of the debate asked physicians whether the cost of the MOC, the time required for testing, or data sharing by ABIM is most bothersome. Of 158 respondents, 71% selected “all of the above.”
 

ABIM touts MOC ‘values’  

The ABIM requires an initial certification assessment that costs thousands of dollars and must be repeated every 10 years. The annual MOC requirements, which were tacked on within the last decade, involve tests that cost $220 for the first certificate a physician holds and about $120 for each subsequent one.

Over the course of his career, Dr. Goodman estimates he will spend over $40,000 to maintain his three ABIM boards in medicine, hematology, and oncology.

The ABIM did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the petition and debate, but a page on the ABIM website touts the “values of MOC” and says there is “compelling evidence” that the MOC improves the value of care without sacrificing quality and that board-certified physicians earn more.

According to the website, the MOC program “provides doctors with a pathway to know that they are staying current in the medical knowledge they use to treat patients and make important care decisions daily.” The ABIM also says that the “program has evolved to include new assessment options and an increased recognition of the work doctors do every day” and that the ABIM “continuously collaborates with doctors to increase the relevance of exams.”

Aniruddha Singh, MD, also weighed in on the value of MOC in a July 13 ABIM blog post. Dr. Singh is a member of this year’s Cardiovascular Disease Traditional, 10-Year MOC Exam Approval Committee and program director for the General Cardiovascular Fellowship at Drexel University College of Medicine, Reading, Pa.

In his post, Dr. Singh states that the MOC “facilitates a broader perspective on a range of topics [and] enables me to delve deeper into relevant areas, fostering a comprehensive understanding that enhances my quality of care.”
 

Growing resistance

Although Dr. Goodman acknowledged the merit of board testing every decade or so, physicians already do continuing medical education (CME) to keep up-to-date on their specialties. Dr. Goodman believes that most physicians, other than those who work for ABIM, would agree that MOC is a waste of time and money.

“It’s a pain-in-the-ass module that you sit at home and Google – it’s not really any sort of assessment,” nor does it help protect the public, said Goodman. The MOC is ultimately “just a money grab.”

According to the ABIM’s website, the nonprofit has net assets of more than $73.2 million as of June 30, 2022. Last year, the ABIM’s revenue hit $71.9 million, with more than half coming from MOC fees and 48% from certification.

The ABIM also says it spent $58 million in 2022. A breakdown shows about 63% of that money went to administering (28%), researching (13%), overseeing (4%), and developing (18%) the certification and MOC exams and program. ABIM’s CEO Dr. Baron makes about $1.2 million a year, according to recent tax filings. The COO makes about $550,000 from the ABIM and “related” organizations.

Fed up with the requirements and cost, Dr. Goodman decided to launch the petition to see if others agreed and how many.

His petition, addressed to the ABIM, expresses “deep dissatisfaction” with the ABIM MOC program and “respectfully request[s] that the ABIM take immediate action to eliminate the MOC program and adopt alternative, less burdensome methods of ensuring physician competence and continuous professional development.” Dr. Goodman, alongside Vinay Prasad, MD, a hematologist-oncologist and professor at the University of California, San Francisco, reiterated these points in a piece highlighting the petition.

Shortly before the petition went public but after he had been vocal on Twitter about issues with the MOC, Dr. Goodman said he received an invitation to join the ABIM Board of Governors. “My hypothesis is they are trying to ‘friend’ me, so I get credentialed, and they get me to stop yelling. It just made me more pissed off. I don’t want to be any part of that,” he said.

H. Jack West, MD, a thoracic oncologist and associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, signed the petition without hesitation.

Dr. West agreed with Dr. Goodman that the 10-year ABIM recertification is sufficient. He also denounced the ABIM testing process, costs, and content, saying he found the questions “so ambiguous that even knowing everything about the subject, I found the assignment of the ‘best’ answer to be a Talmudic interpretation.”

“The questions seem to have a sadistic level of complexity and ambiguity baked into them, rather than being a direct assessment of knowledge,” he explained.

The ABIM is also “completely opaque” about their process of developing questions and defining answers, Dr. West said. And “the ABIM offers no data to support that their processes improve any clinical outcomes.”

Yet, the MOC “forces physicians to spend several hundred dollars every year as well as an incredible amount of their time jumping through hoops at the behest of ABIM to satisfy these imposed requirements,” Dr. West said. The time spent satisfying these requirements is also “strip-mining physician morale” by taking time away from families and personal lives.

As for ABIM finances, Dr. West said the organization offers no justification for “the extortionate costs imposed by this de facto monopoly.”

The glimpses we do see, however, “indicate an organization spending on a lavish condominium and offering conspicuously generous remuneration to its own leadership. The only thing that is assured by the ABIM’s MOC program is that it is wildly profitable for the ABIM,” he added.

In a tweet, he called on physicians to take a stand: “If you think MOC is good, say it. Otherwise, if you don’t sign [the petition], ask yourself why you don’t have the courage & character to do so.”
 

Next steps?

Dr. Goodman’s petition lays out potential alternatives to the MOC that “would better support physician competence and continuing education without imposing unnecessary hurdles.”

Alternatives include encouraging voluntary, accessible, and evidence-based CME programs to promote lifelong learning among physicians, establishing a system for peer evaluation and feedback, encouraging self-assessment, and fostering a culture of continuous quality improvement.

Dr. Goodman’s goal is to garner at least 10,000 signatures and reach out to credentialing committees around the country with the results to promote alternatives to MOC. As of the morning of August 1, the petition had more than 7,900 signatures.

He also gives Dr. Baron credit for his willingness to have a conversation about the MOC and intends for that conversation to be a civil, respectful debate.

“I can’t think of anything he could say that will convince me [MOC] is the right thing to do, but we’ll see what he has to say,” Dr. Goodman said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A petition demanding an end to maintenance of certification (MOC) requirements from the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) gained traction among oncologists in late July, garnering nearly 7,500 signatures in 10 days.

The MOC program, “originally intended to uphold the standards of medical practice and promote lifelong learning, has evolved into a complex and time-consuming process that poses significant challenges to practicing physicians,” according to the petition launched on July 21 by hematologist-oncologist Aaron Goodman, MD. The MOC “has become burdensome, costly, and lacks evidence to support its effectiveness in improving patient care or physician competence.”

Dr. Goodman, assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego, is scheduled to debate the matter with ABIM President and Chief Executive Officer Richard J. Baron, MD, during a Healthcare Unfiltered podcast recorded and hosted by Chadi Nabhan, MD. In the August 3 podcast, Dr. Goodman and Dr. Baron will respond to questions posed via tweets, Dr. Goodman said.

A Twitter survey posted by Dr. Nabhan in advance of the debate asked physicians whether the cost of the MOC, the time required for testing, or data sharing by ABIM is most bothersome. Of 158 respondents, 71% selected “all of the above.”
 

ABIM touts MOC ‘values’  

The ABIM requires an initial certification assessment that costs thousands of dollars and must be repeated every 10 years. The annual MOC requirements, which were tacked on within the last decade, involve tests that cost $220 for the first certificate a physician holds and about $120 for each subsequent one.

Over the course of his career, Dr. Goodman estimates he will spend over $40,000 to maintain his three ABIM boards in medicine, hematology, and oncology.

The ABIM did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the petition and debate, but a page on the ABIM website touts the “values of MOC” and says there is “compelling evidence” that the MOC improves the value of care without sacrificing quality and that board-certified physicians earn more.

According to the website, the MOC program “provides doctors with a pathway to know that they are staying current in the medical knowledge they use to treat patients and make important care decisions daily.” The ABIM also says that the “program has evolved to include new assessment options and an increased recognition of the work doctors do every day” and that the ABIM “continuously collaborates with doctors to increase the relevance of exams.”

Aniruddha Singh, MD, also weighed in on the value of MOC in a July 13 ABIM blog post. Dr. Singh is a member of this year’s Cardiovascular Disease Traditional, 10-Year MOC Exam Approval Committee and program director for the General Cardiovascular Fellowship at Drexel University College of Medicine, Reading, Pa.

In his post, Dr. Singh states that the MOC “facilitates a broader perspective on a range of topics [and] enables me to delve deeper into relevant areas, fostering a comprehensive understanding that enhances my quality of care.”
 

Growing resistance

Although Dr. Goodman acknowledged the merit of board testing every decade or so, physicians already do continuing medical education (CME) to keep up-to-date on their specialties. Dr. Goodman believes that most physicians, other than those who work for ABIM, would agree that MOC is a waste of time and money.

“It’s a pain-in-the-ass module that you sit at home and Google – it’s not really any sort of assessment,” nor does it help protect the public, said Goodman. The MOC is ultimately “just a money grab.”

According to the ABIM’s website, the nonprofit has net assets of more than $73.2 million as of June 30, 2022. Last year, the ABIM’s revenue hit $71.9 million, with more than half coming from MOC fees and 48% from certification.

The ABIM also says it spent $58 million in 2022. A breakdown shows about 63% of that money went to administering (28%), researching (13%), overseeing (4%), and developing (18%) the certification and MOC exams and program. ABIM’s CEO Dr. Baron makes about $1.2 million a year, according to recent tax filings. The COO makes about $550,000 from the ABIM and “related” organizations.

Fed up with the requirements and cost, Dr. Goodman decided to launch the petition to see if others agreed and how many.

His petition, addressed to the ABIM, expresses “deep dissatisfaction” with the ABIM MOC program and “respectfully request[s] that the ABIM take immediate action to eliminate the MOC program and adopt alternative, less burdensome methods of ensuring physician competence and continuous professional development.” Dr. Goodman, alongside Vinay Prasad, MD, a hematologist-oncologist and professor at the University of California, San Francisco, reiterated these points in a piece highlighting the petition.

Shortly before the petition went public but after he had been vocal on Twitter about issues with the MOC, Dr. Goodman said he received an invitation to join the ABIM Board of Governors. “My hypothesis is they are trying to ‘friend’ me, so I get credentialed, and they get me to stop yelling. It just made me more pissed off. I don’t want to be any part of that,” he said.

H. Jack West, MD, a thoracic oncologist and associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, signed the petition without hesitation.

Dr. West agreed with Dr. Goodman that the 10-year ABIM recertification is sufficient. He also denounced the ABIM testing process, costs, and content, saying he found the questions “so ambiguous that even knowing everything about the subject, I found the assignment of the ‘best’ answer to be a Talmudic interpretation.”

“The questions seem to have a sadistic level of complexity and ambiguity baked into them, rather than being a direct assessment of knowledge,” he explained.

The ABIM is also “completely opaque” about their process of developing questions and defining answers, Dr. West said. And “the ABIM offers no data to support that their processes improve any clinical outcomes.”

Yet, the MOC “forces physicians to spend several hundred dollars every year as well as an incredible amount of their time jumping through hoops at the behest of ABIM to satisfy these imposed requirements,” Dr. West said. The time spent satisfying these requirements is also “strip-mining physician morale” by taking time away from families and personal lives.

As for ABIM finances, Dr. West said the organization offers no justification for “the extortionate costs imposed by this de facto monopoly.”

The glimpses we do see, however, “indicate an organization spending on a lavish condominium and offering conspicuously generous remuneration to its own leadership. The only thing that is assured by the ABIM’s MOC program is that it is wildly profitable for the ABIM,” he added.

In a tweet, he called on physicians to take a stand: “If you think MOC is good, say it. Otherwise, if you don’t sign [the petition], ask yourself why you don’t have the courage & character to do so.”
 

Next steps?

Dr. Goodman’s petition lays out potential alternatives to the MOC that “would better support physician competence and continuing education without imposing unnecessary hurdles.”

Alternatives include encouraging voluntary, accessible, and evidence-based CME programs to promote lifelong learning among physicians, establishing a system for peer evaluation and feedback, encouraging self-assessment, and fostering a culture of continuous quality improvement.

Dr. Goodman’s goal is to garner at least 10,000 signatures and reach out to credentialing committees around the country with the results to promote alternatives to MOC. As of the morning of August 1, the petition had more than 7,900 signatures.

He also gives Dr. Baron credit for his willingness to have a conversation about the MOC and intends for that conversation to be a civil, respectful debate.

“I can’t think of anything he could say that will convince me [MOC] is the right thing to do, but we’ll see what he has to say,” Dr. Goodman said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Who owns your genes? The assumption of any sane person would be that he or she owns his or her own genes. I mean, how dumb a question is that?
 

Yet, in 2007, Dov Michaeli, MD, PhD, described how an American company had claimed ownership of genetic materials and believed that it had the right to commercialize those naturally occurring bits of DNA. Myriad Genetics began by patenting mutations of BRCA. Dr. Michaeli issued a call for action to support early efforts to pass legislation to restore and preserve individual ownership of one’s own genes. This is a historically important quick read/watch/listen. Give it a click.

In related legislation, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), originally introduced by New York Rep. Louise Slaughter in 1995, was ultimately spearheaded by California Rep. Xavier Becerra (now Secretary of Health & Human Services) to passage by the House of Representatives on April 25, 2007, by a vote of 420-9-3. Led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, it was passed by the Senate on April 24, 2008, by a vote of 95-0. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on May 21, 2008.

GINA is a landmark piece of legislation that protects Americans. It prohibits employers and health insurers from discriminating against people on the basis of their genetic information, and it also prohibits the use of genetic information in life insurance and long-term care insurance.

Its impact has been immense. GINA has been indispensable in promoting progress in the field of human genetics. By safeguarding individuals against discrimination based on genetic information, it has encouraged broader participation in research, built public trust, and stimulated advancements in genetic testing and personalized medicine. GINA’s impact extends beyond borders and has influenced much of the rest of the world.

As important as GINA was to the field, more was needed. National legislation to protect ownership of genetic materials has, despite many attempts, still not become law in the United States. However, in our system of divided government and balance of power, we also have independent courts.

June 13, 2023, was the 10th anniversary of another landmark event. The legal case is that of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, a Salt Lake City–based biotech company that held patents on isolated DNA sequences associated with breast and ovarian cancer. The AMP, joined by several other organizations and researchers, challenged Myriad’s gene patents, arguing that human genes are naturally occurring and, therefore, should not be subject to patenting. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that naturally occurring DNA segments are products of nature and therefore are not eligible for patent protection.

This was a pivotal decision in the field of human genetics and had a broad impact on genetic research. The decision clarified that naturally occurring DNA sequences cannot be patented, which means that researchers are free to use these sequences in their research without fear of patent infringement. This has led to a vast increase in the amount of genetic research being conducted, and it has also led to the development of new genetic tests and treatments.

The numbers of genetic research papers published in scientific journals and of genetic tests available to consumers have increased significantly, while the cost of genetic testing has decreased significantly. The AMP v. Myriad decision is likely to continue to have an impact for many years to come.

In 2023, Americans do own their own genes and can feel secure in them not being used against us. Thank you, common sense, activist American molecular pathologists, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court for siding with the people.Dr. Lundbert is editor in chief of Cancer Commons. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Who owns your genes? The assumption of any sane person would be that he or she owns his or her own genes. I mean, how dumb a question is that?
 

Yet, in 2007, Dov Michaeli, MD, PhD, described how an American company had claimed ownership of genetic materials and believed that it had the right to commercialize those naturally occurring bits of DNA. Myriad Genetics began by patenting mutations of BRCA. Dr. Michaeli issued a call for action to support early efforts to pass legislation to restore and preserve individual ownership of one’s own genes. This is a historically important quick read/watch/listen. Give it a click.

In related legislation, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), originally introduced by New York Rep. Louise Slaughter in 1995, was ultimately spearheaded by California Rep. Xavier Becerra (now Secretary of Health & Human Services) to passage by the House of Representatives on April 25, 2007, by a vote of 420-9-3. Led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, it was passed by the Senate on April 24, 2008, by a vote of 95-0. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on May 21, 2008.

GINA is a landmark piece of legislation that protects Americans. It prohibits employers and health insurers from discriminating against people on the basis of their genetic information, and it also prohibits the use of genetic information in life insurance and long-term care insurance.

Its impact has been immense. GINA has been indispensable in promoting progress in the field of human genetics. By safeguarding individuals against discrimination based on genetic information, it has encouraged broader participation in research, built public trust, and stimulated advancements in genetic testing and personalized medicine. GINA’s impact extends beyond borders and has influenced much of the rest of the world.

As important as GINA was to the field, more was needed. National legislation to protect ownership of genetic materials has, despite many attempts, still not become law in the United States. However, in our system of divided government and balance of power, we also have independent courts.

June 13, 2023, was the 10th anniversary of another landmark event. The legal case is that of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, a Salt Lake City–based biotech company that held patents on isolated DNA sequences associated with breast and ovarian cancer. The AMP, joined by several other organizations and researchers, challenged Myriad’s gene patents, arguing that human genes are naturally occurring and, therefore, should not be subject to patenting. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that naturally occurring DNA segments are products of nature and therefore are not eligible for patent protection.

This was a pivotal decision in the field of human genetics and had a broad impact on genetic research. The decision clarified that naturally occurring DNA sequences cannot be patented, which means that researchers are free to use these sequences in their research without fear of patent infringement. This has led to a vast increase in the amount of genetic research being conducted, and it has also led to the development of new genetic tests and treatments.

The numbers of genetic research papers published in scientific journals and of genetic tests available to consumers have increased significantly, while the cost of genetic testing has decreased significantly. The AMP v. Myriad decision is likely to continue to have an impact for many years to come.

In 2023, Americans do own their own genes and can feel secure in them not being used against us. Thank you, common sense, activist American molecular pathologists, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court for siding with the people.Dr. Lundbert is editor in chief of Cancer Commons. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Who owns your genes? The assumption of any sane person would be that he or she owns his or her own genes. I mean, how dumb a question is that?
 

Yet, in 2007, Dov Michaeli, MD, PhD, described how an American company had claimed ownership of genetic materials and believed that it had the right to commercialize those naturally occurring bits of DNA. Myriad Genetics began by patenting mutations of BRCA. Dr. Michaeli issued a call for action to support early efforts to pass legislation to restore and preserve individual ownership of one’s own genes. This is a historically important quick read/watch/listen. Give it a click.

In related legislation, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), originally introduced by New York Rep. Louise Slaughter in 1995, was ultimately spearheaded by California Rep. Xavier Becerra (now Secretary of Health & Human Services) to passage by the House of Representatives on April 25, 2007, by a vote of 420-9-3. Led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, it was passed by the Senate on April 24, 2008, by a vote of 95-0. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on May 21, 2008.

GINA is a landmark piece of legislation that protects Americans. It prohibits employers and health insurers from discriminating against people on the basis of their genetic information, and it also prohibits the use of genetic information in life insurance and long-term care insurance.

Its impact has been immense. GINA has been indispensable in promoting progress in the field of human genetics. By safeguarding individuals against discrimination based on genetic information, it has encouraged broader participation in research, built public trust, and stimulated advancements in genetic testing and personalized medicine. GINA’s impact extends beyond borders and has influenced much of the rest of the world.

As important as GINA was to the field, more was needed. National legislation to protect ownership of genetic materials has, despite many attempts, still not become law in the United States. However, in our system of divided government and balance of power, we also have independent courts.

June 13, 2023, was the 10th anniversary of another landmark event. The legal case is that of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, a Salt Lake City–based biotech company that held patents on isolated DNA sequences associated with breast and ovarian cancer. The AMP, joined by several other organizations and researchers, challenged Myriad’s gene patents, arguing that human genes are naturally occurring and, therefore, should not be subject to patenting. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that naturally occurring DNA segments are products of nature and therefore are not eligible for patent protection.

This was a pivotal decision in the field of human genetics and had a broad impact on genetic research. The decision clarified that naturally occurring DNA sequences cannot be patented, which means that researchers are free to use these sequences in their research without fear of patent infringement. This has led to a vast increase in the amount of genetic research being conducted, and it has also led to the development of new genetic tests and treatments.

The numbers of genetic research papers published in scientific journals and of genetic tests available to consumers have increased significantly, while the cost of genetic testing has decreased significantly. The AMP v. Myriad decision is likely to continue to have an impact for many years to come.

In 2023, Americans do own their own genes and can feel secure in them not being used against us. Thank you, common sense, activist American molecular pathologists, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court for siding with the people.Dr. Lundbert is editor in chief of Cancer Commons. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Drinking just one alcoholic beverage a day is enough to raise blood pressure (BP) in healthy adults, results of a “dose-response” meta-analysis suggest.

“A vexing question has been whether usual intake of small amounts of alcohol is associated with a higher level of BP. We identified a continuous, more or less linear association, with no evidence of a threshold for the association,” study coauthor Paul Whelton, MD, of Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, said in an interview.

copyright Fuse/Thinkstock

For systolic BP (SBP), “the most important BP risk indicator for CVD [cardiovascular disease], the association was robust, being present in both men and women and in both North America as well as Asia,” Dr. Whelton noted.

Based on the results, “the lower the better, and no consumption even better, as we did not find any indication that human health may benefit from consumption of very small amounts of alcohol,” senior author Marco Vinceti, MD, PhD, of University of Modena and Reggio Emilia University in Italy, told this news organization.

“Clearly, alcohol is not the only or necessarily the main determinant of high blood pressure, and the effects of small intakes of alcohol emerging from our pooled analysis were certainly not biologically as relevant and meaningful as those induced by high intakes,” Dr. Vinceti added.

The study was published online in Hypertension.

The researchers analyzed data from seven large, observational studies conducted in the United States, Korea, and Japan involving 19,548 adults (65% men).

Participants ranged in age from 20 years to the early 70s at baseline and were followed for a median of 5.3 years (range, 4-12 years). None of the participants had previously been diagnosed with hypertension or other CVD, diabetes, liver disease, alcoholism, or binge drinking.

Compared with nondrinkers, SBP was 1.25 mm Hg higher in adults who consumed an average of 12 grams of alcohol per day, rising to 4.90 mm Hg in adults consuming an average of 48 grams of alcohol per day.

For reference, in the United States, 12 ounces of regular beer, 5 ounces of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot of distilled spirits contains about 14 grams of alcohol.

Diastolic BP (DBP) was 1.14 mm Hg higher in adults who consumed an average of 12 grams of alcohol per day, rising to 3.10 mm Hg in those who consumed an average of 48 grams of alcohol per day.

Subgroup analyses by gender showed an almost linear association between baseline alcohol intake and SBP changes in men and women and for DBP in men, while in women, there was an inverted U-shaped association.
 

No safe level

“From a BP perspective, it’s best to avoid alcohol intake. This is what the WHO [World Health Organization] recommends,” Dr. Whelton said.

“If someone is already drinking alcohol and does not want to stop doing so, minimizing alcohol consumption is desirable; many guidelines recommend not starting to drink alcohol but in those already drinking alcohol, consumption of two or less standard drinks per day for men and one or less standard drinks of alcohol per day for women,” Dr. Whelton noted.

Commenting on the study for this article, Alberto Ascherio, MD, of Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said it’s been known for more than 30 years that alcohol intake is associated with increased systolic and diastolic BP. The added value of this new study is a “refinement of the estimate of the dose response.”

Dr. Ascherio noted that “moderate alcohol consumption is associated with a modest increase in risk of cancer, but, in spite of the adverse association with BP, with a potentially beneficial effect on cardiovascular disease.” However, “the causality of the latter association has been questioned, but there is no consensus on this.”

Also weighing in, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services for the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, said this new study represents “yet another piece of evidence suggesting that there simply is no ‘healthy’ amount of alcohol use in humans.

“Even small amounts of alcohol intake can have negative health effects, as demonstrated in this study,” Dr. Brennan said. “There is still a widely held belief among people that drinking in moderation is good for you. It is becoming more and more clear that this is simply not the case. As health authorities grapple with drinking ‘recommendations,’ additional datasets like these will be helpful.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Whelton, Dr. Vinceti, Dr. Ascherio, and Dr. Brennan have no relevant disclosures.

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