User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Extensive limb swelling after vaccines – including SARS-CoV-2 vaccine
A 19-month-old boy comes to the office with a large firm erythematous swelling of his anterior left thigh that reaches from just below the inguinal crease to the patella. He got his routine immunizations 2 days prior to this visit including the fourth DTaP dose in his left thigh. Clinicians who care for children and who give routine immunizations occasionally see such an adverse effect following immunization (AEFI). These large local reactions have been described for many decades and occur after many vaccines.
What is extensive limb swelling (ELS)? ELS is defined as erythema/swelling crossing a joint or extending mostly joint to joint. It is a subset of large local AEFIs. ELS is generally firm and often erythematous with varying degrees of pain. ELS is now most frequent after pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) and DTaP, with a 1%-4% rate after DTaP boosters.1-3 ELS and other large local swelling reactions occur at nearly any age.1 And yet there is still much that is not known about their true pathogenesis. Likewise, there are no accurate predictors of which vaccinees will develop large inflammatory processes at or near the site of immunization.
ELS after standard vaccines
The largest report to date on AEFI of all ages, including ELS, covered 1990-2003.1 Two upfront caveats are: This study evaluated ELS before PCVs were available, and in adults, repeat 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine was the most common cause of ELS in this study, comprising 45% of all adult ELS.
Considering all ages, ELS onset was nearly always greater than 1 hour and was less than 24 hours post vaccine in almost 75% of patients. However, for those aged under 2 years, onset in less than 24 hours was even more frequent (84%). Interestingly, concomitant fever occurred in less than 25% regardless of age. In adults, ELS after tetanus- and diphtheria-containing vaccines occurred mostly in women (75%); whereas for ELS under 8 years of age, males predominated (about 60%). Of note, tetanus- and diphtheria-containing vaccines were the most frequent ELS-inducing vaccines in children, that is, 75% aged under 8 years and 55% for those aged 8-17 years. Focusing on pediatric ELS after DTaP by dose, 33% were after the fourth, 31% after the fifth, 12% after the second, 10% after the first, and 3% after the third dose. In the case above, ELS was after the fourth dose.
Clinicians caring for children know how to manage ELS after DTaP or PCVs. They understand that ELS looks scary and is uncomfortable but is not dangerous and requires no specific treatment. Supportive management, that is, pain reliever, cool compresses, and TLC, are warranted. ELS is not a contraindication to subsequent immunization with the same vaccine. That said, large local reactions or ELS do occur with subsequent doses of that same vaccine at varying rates up to 66% of the time. Management is the same with repeat episodes, and no sequelae are expected. Supportive management only is standard unless one suspects a very rare Arthus reaction. If central necrosis occurs or swelling evolution/resolution is not per expectations, referral to a vaccine expert can sort out if it is an Arthus reaction, in which case, subsequent use of the same vaccine in not recommended.
ELS and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines
With SARS-CoV-2 vaccines now authorized for adolescents and expected in a few months for younger children, large local AEFI reactions related to pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are expected, given that “COVID arm” is now well described in adults.4 Overall, ELS/large local reactions have been reported more frequently with the Moderna than Pfizer mRNA vaccine.4 In the almost 42% of adults having ELS post first dose, repeat ELS post second dose often appears sooner but also resolves more quickly, with no known sequelae.5
Some biopsies have shown delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (DTH) (superficial perivascular and perifollicular lymphocytic infiltrates with rare eosinophils and scattered mast cells),6,7 while others show no DTH but these patients have findings of immediate hypersensitivity findings and negative skin testing to the vaccine.8 With regard to sex, Dutch ELS data in White adults reveal 90% occur in females – higher than the 75% female rate after standard vaccines.7 Onset of ELS data show that Pfizer mRNA vaccinees had onset on average at 38 hours (range, <1 hr to 12 days). Boston data mostly in White adults reveal later onset (median, 6 days; range, 2-12 days).4 In contrast, adults of color appear to have later onset (mean, 8 days; range, 4-14 days).9
In addition to the local swelling, patients had concurrent injection-site AEFIs of pain (65%), warmth (63%), and pruritus (26%), plus myalgia (51%), headache (48%), malaise (45%), fatigue (43%), chills (33%), arthralgia (30%), and fever (28%).7
What should we tell families about pediatric ELS before we give SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to children? Clinical pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials are smaller “immunologic bridging” studies, not requiring proof of efficacy. So, the precise incidence of pediatric ELS (adult rate is estimated under 1/100,000) may not be known until months after general use. Nevertheless, part of our counseling of families will need to include ELS/large local reactions. Unless new data show otherwise, the spiel that clinicians have developed to counsel about the rare chance of ELS after routine vaccines should also be useful to inform families of the rare chance of ELS post SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.
The bottom line is that the management of pediatric ELS after SARS-CoV-2 vaccines should be the same as after standard vaccines. And remember, whether the reactions are DTH or not, neither immediate local injection-site reactions nor DTH reactions are contraindications to subsequent vaccination unless anaphylaxis or Arthus reaction is suspected.10,11
Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Mo. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Woo EJ and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Working Group. Clin Infect Dis 2003;37:351-8.
2. Rennels MB et al. Pediatrics 2000;105:e12.
3. Huber BM, Goetschel P. J Pediatr. 2011;158:1033.
4. Blumenthal KG et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1273-7.
5. McMahon DE et al. J Amer Acad Dermatol. 2021;85(1):46-55. 6. Johnston MS et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157(6):716-20 .
7. ELS associated with the administration of Comirnaty®. WHO database Vigilyze (cited 2021 Feb 22). Available from https://vigilyze.who-umc.org/.
8. Baeck M et al. N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2104751.
9. Samarakoon U et al. N Eng J Med. 2021 Jun 9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2108620.
10. Kelso JM et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;130:25-43.
11. Zafack JG et al. Pediatrics. 2017;140(3):e20163707.
A 19-month-old boy comes to the office with a large firm erythematous swelling of his anterior left thigh that reaches from just below the inguinal crease to the patella. He got his routine immunizations 2 days prior to this visit including the fourth DTaP dose in his left thigh. Clinicians who care for children and who give routine immunizations occasionally see such an adverse effect following immunization (AEFI). These large local reactions have been described for many decades and occur after many vaccines.
What is extensive limb swelling (ELS)? ELS is defined as erythema/swelling crossing a joint or extending mostly joint to joint. It is a subset of large local AEFIs. ELS is generally firm and often erythematous with varying degrees of pain. ELS is now most frequent after pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) and DTaP, with a 1%-4% rate after DTaP boosters.1-3 ELS and other large local swelling reactions occur at nearly any age.1 And yet there is still much that is not known about their true pathogenesis. Likewise, there are no accurate predictors of which vaccinees will develop large inflammatory processes at or near the site of immunization.
ELS after standard vaccines
The largest report to date on AEFI of all ages, including ELS, covered 1990-2003.1 Two upfront caveats are: This study evaluated ELS before PCVs were available, and in adults, repeat 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine was the most common cause of ELS in this study, comprising 45% of all adult ELS.
Considering all ages, ELS onset was nearly always greater than 1 hour and was less than 24 hours post vaccine in almost 75% of patients. However, for those aged under 2 years, onset in less than 24 hours was even more frequent (84%). Interestingly, concomitant fever occurred in less than 25% regardless of age. In adults, ELS after tetanus- and diphtheria-containing vaccines occurred mostly in women (75%); whereas for ELS under 8 years of age, males predominated (about 60%). Of note, tetanus- and diphtheria-containing vaccines were the most frequent ELS-inducing vaccines in children, that is, 75% aged under 8 years and 55% for those aged 8-17 years. Focusing on pediatric ELS after DTaP by dose, 33% were after the fourth, 31% after the fifth, 12% after the second, 10% after the first, and 3% after the third dose. In the case above, ELS was after the fourth dose.
Clinicians caring for children know how to manage ELS after DTaP or PCVs. They understand that ELS looks scary and is uncomfortable but is not dangerous and requires no specific treatment. Supportive management, that is, pain reliever, cool compresses, and TLC, are warranted. ELS is not a contraindication to subsequent immunization with the same vaccine. That said, large local reactions or ELS do occur with subsequent doses of that same vaccine at varying rates up to 66% of the time. Management is the same with repeat episodes, and no sequelae are expected. Supportive management only is standard unless one suspects a very rare Arthus reaction. If central necrosis occurs or swelling evolution/resolution is not per expectations, referral to a vaccine expert can sort out if it is an Arthus reaction, in which case, subsequent use of the same vaccine in not recommended.
ELS and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines
With SARS-CoV-2 vaccines now authorized for adolescents and expected in a few months for younger children, large local AEFI reactions related to pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are expected, given that “COVID arm” is now well described in adults.4 Overall, ELS/large local reactions have been reported more frequently with the Moderna than Pfizer mRNA vaccine.4 In the almost 42% of adults having ELS post first dose, repeat ELS post second dose often appears sooner but also resolves more quickly, with no known sequelae.5
Some biopsies have shown delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (DTH) (superficial perivascular and perifollicular lymphocytic infiltrates with rare eosinophils and scattered mast cells),6,7 while others show no DTH but these patients have findings of immediate hypersensitivity findings and negative skin testing to the vaccine.8 With regard to sex, Dutch ELS data in White adults reveal 90% occur in females – higher than the 75% female rate after standard vaccines.7 Onset of ELS data show that Pfizer mRNA vaccinees had onset on average at 38 hours (range, <1 hr to 12 days). Boston data mostly in White adults reveal later onset (median, 6 days; range, 2-12 days).4 In contrast, adults of color appear to have later onset (mean, 8 days; range, 4-14 days).9
In addition to the local swelling, patients had concurrent injection-site AEFIs of pain (65%), warmth (63%), and pruritus (26%), plus myalgia (51%), headache (48%), malaise (45%), fatigue (43%), chills (33%), arthralgia (30%), and fever (28%).7
What should we tell families about pediatric ELS before we give SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to children? Clinical pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials are smaller “immunologic bridging” studies, not requiring proof of efficacy. So, the precise incidence of pediatric ELS (adult rate is estimated under 1/100,000) may not be known until months after general use. Nevertheless, part of our counseling of families will need to include ELS/large local reactions. Unless new data show otherwise, the spiel that clinicians have developed to counsel about the rare chance of ELS after routine vaccines should also be useful to inform families of the rare chance of ELS post SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.
The bottom line is that the management of pediatric ELS after SARS-CoV-2 vaccines should be the same as after standard vaccines. And remember, whether the reactions are DTH or not, neither immediate local injection-site reactions nor DTH reactions are contraindications to subsequent vaccination unless anaphylaxis or Arthus reaction is suspected.10,11
Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Mo. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Woo EJ and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Working Group. Clin Infect Dis 2003;37:351-8.
2. Rennels MB et al. Pediatrics 2000;105:e12.
3. Huber BM, Goetschel P. J Pediatr. 2011;158:1033.
4. Blumenthal KG et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1273-7.
5. McMahon DE et al. J Amer Acad Dermatol. 2021;85(1):46-55. 6. Johnston MS et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157(6):716-20 .
7. ELS associated with the administration of Comirnaty®. WHO database Vigilyze (cited 2021 Feb 22). Available from https://vigilyze.who-umc.org/.
8. Baeck M et al. N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2104751.
9. Samarakoon U et al. N Eng J Med. 2021 Jun 9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2108620.
10. Kelso JM et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;130:25-43.
11. Zafack JG et al. Pediatrics. 2017;140(3):e20163707.
A 19-month-old boy comes to the office with a large firm erythematous swelling of his anterior left thigh that reaches from just below the inguinal crease to the patella. He got his routine immunizations 2 days prior to this visit including the fourth DTaP dose in his left thigh. Clinicians who care for children and who give routine immunizations occasionally see such an adverse effect following immunization (AEFI). These large local reactions have been described for many decades and occur after many vaccines.
What is extensive limb swelling (ELS)? ELS is defined as erythema/swelling crossing a joint or extending mostly joint to joint. It is a subset of large local AEFIs. ELS is generally firm and often erythematous with varying degrees of pain. ELS is now most frequent after pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) and DTaP, with a 1%-4% rate after DTaP boosters.1-3 ELS and other large local swelling reactions occur at nearly any age.1 And yet there is still much that is not known about their true pathogenesis. Likewise, there are no accurate predictors of which vaccinees will develop large inflammatory processes at or near the site of immunization.
ELS after standard vaccines
The largest report to date on AEFI of all ages, including ELS, covered 1990-2003.1 Two upfront caveats are: This study evaluated ELS before PCVs were available, and in adults, repeat 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine was the most common cause of ELS in this study, comprising 45% of all adult ELS.
Considering all ages, ELS onset was nearly always greater than 1 hour and was less than 24 hours post vaccine in almost 75% of patients. However, for those aged under 2 years, onset in less than 24 hours was even more frequent (84%). Interestingly, concomitant fever occurred in less than 25% regardless of age. In adults, ELS after tetanus- and diphtheria-containing vaccines occurred mostly in women (75%); whereas for ELS under 8 years of age, males predominated (about 60%). Of note, tetanus- and diphtheria-containing vaccines were the most frequent ELS-inducing vaccines in children, that is, 75% aged under 8 years and 55% for those aged 8-17 years. Focusing on pediatric ELS after DTaP by dose, 33% were after the fourth, 31% after the fifth, 12% after the second, 10% after the first, and 3% after the third dose. In the case above, ELS was after the fourth dose.
Clinicians caring for children know how to manage ELS after DTaP or PCVs. They understand that ELS looks scary and is uncomfortable but is not dangerous and requires no specific treatment. Supportive management, that is, pain reliever, cool compresses, and TLC, are warranted. ELS is not a contraindication to subsequent immunization with the same vaccine. That said, large local reactions or ELS do occur with subsequent doses of that same vaccine at varying rates up to 66% of the time. Management is the same with repeat episodes, and no sequelae are expected. Supportive management only is standard unless one suspects a very rare Arthus reaction. If central necrosis occurs or swelling evolution/resolution is not per expectations, referral to a vaccine expert can sort out if it is an Arthus reaction, in which case, subsequent use of the same vaccine in not recommended.
ELS and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines
With SARS-CoV-2 vaccines now authorized for adolescents and expected in a few months for younger children, large local AEFI reactions related to pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are expected, given that “COVID arm” is now well described in adults.4 Overall, ELS/large local reactions have been reported more frequently with the Moderna than Pfizer mRNA vaccine.4 In the almost 42% of adults having ELS post first dose, repeat ELS post second dose often appears sooner but also resolves more quickly, with no known sequelae.5
Some biopsies have shown delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (DTH) (superficial perivascular and perifollicular lymphocytic infiltrates with rare eosinophils and scattered mast cells),6,7 while others show no DTH but these patients have findings of immediate hypersensitivity findings and negative skin testing to the vaccine.8 With regard to sex, Dutch ELS data in White adults reveal 90% occur in females – higher than the 75% female rate after standard vaccines.7 Onset of ELS data show that Pfizer mRNA vaccinees had onset on average at 38 hours (range, <1 hr to 12 days). Boston data mostly in White adults reveal later onset (median, 6 days; range, 2-12 days).4 In contrast, adults of color appear to have later onset (mean, 8 days; range, 4-14 days).9
In addition to the local swelling, patients had concurrent injection-site AEFIs of pain (65%), warmth (63%), and pruritus (26%), plus myalgia (51%), headache (48%), malaise (45%), fatigue (43%), chills (33%), arthralgia (30%), and fever (28%).7
What should we tell families about pediatric ELS before we give SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to children? Clinical pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials are smaller “immunologic bridging” studies, not requiring proof of efficacy. So, the precise incidence of pediatric ELS (adult rate is estimated under 1/100,000) may not be known until months after general use. Nevertheless, part of our counseling of families will need to include ELS/large local reactions. Unless new data show otherwise, the spiel that clinicians have developed to counsel about the rare chance of ELS after routine vaccines should also be useful to inform families of the rare chance of ELS post SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.
The bottom line is that the management of pediatric ELS after SARS-CoV-2 vaccines should be the same as after standard vaccines. And remember, whether the reactions are DTH or not, neither immediate local injection-site reactions nor DTH reactions are contraindications to subsequent vaccination unless anaphylaxis or Arthus reaction is suspected.10,11
Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Mo. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Woo EJ and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Working Group. Clin Infect Dis 2003;37:351-8.
2. Rennels MB et al. Pediatrics 2000;105:e12.
3. Huber BM, Goetschel P. J Pediatr. 2011;158:1033.
4. Blumenthal KG et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1273-7.
5. McMahon DE et al. J Amer Acad Dermatol. 2021;85(1):46-55. 6. Johnston MS et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157(6):716-20 .
7. ELS associated with the administration of Comirnaty®. WHO database Vigilyze (cited 2021 Feb 22). Available from https://vigilyze.who-umc.org/.
8. Baeck M et al. N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2104751.
9. Samarakoon U et al. N Eng J Med. 2021 Jun 9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2108620.
10. Kelso JM et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;130:25-43.
11. Zafack JG et al. Pediatrics. 2017;140(3):e20163707.
The most important meal of the day, with extra zinc
Busting the myth of skipping breakfast
Your mother told you that breakfast was the most important meal of the day. Cereal marketing teams banked on that, selling breakfast to millions of people based on a common turn of phrase like “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.” Well, what if the notion of breakfast’s importance isn’t just marketing BS?
A new study suggests that adults who don’t eat breakfast are setting themselves up for a nutritional gap. Common breakfast foods pack a ton of calcium, fiber, and vitamin C from milk, cereals, and fruit. Christopher Taylor, PhD, senior author of the study and professor of dietetics at the Ohio State University, Columbus, said that if you’re not getting those nutrients from foods at breakfast, there’s a tendency to skip them throughout the rest of your day.
Data from a sample of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey – 30,889 adults aged 19 and older who participated between 2005 and 2016 – showed that 15.2% of participants reported skipping breakfast.
The research team then estimated nutrient consumption using federal dietary studies and guidelines and compared it to Food and Nutrition Board of National Academies nutrient recommendations. The breakfast skippers, they determined, were missing out on pronounced levels of fiber, magnesium, iron, calcium, and vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, C, and D and were more likely to fall prey to lower-quality snacking. Cue those Oreos at 3 pm.
You may get more total calories within the day by eating breakfast, but your lunch, dinner, and snacks are much larger when you skip it. So the case of breakfast being the most important meal of the day checks out. Who knew that Tony the Tiger – and Mom – were actually on to something?
The bitter taste of a healthy liver
Alcohol and liver disease. They go together like, well, alcohol and liver disease. But alcohol isn’t the only reason people get liver disease, and now there’s a potential new treatment for people with hepatic steatosis on the way to becoming nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: beer.
Okay, not literally beer, but a pair of compounds derived from hops, the plant that gives beer its color and bitter flavor. In a study published in eLife, researchers from Oregon State University fed mice either a low-fat diet or a high-fat diet to induce hepatic steatosis, with some on the high-fat diet receiving either xanthohumol, a prenylated flavonoid from the hop plant, or tetrahydroxanthohumol, a hydrogenated derivative of xanthohumol.
Mice that received tetrahydroxanthohumol not only gained weight at a far slower rate than that of mice on the normal high-fat diet, their blood sugar remained stable; xanthohumol was similarly effective if the dosage was higher. The researchers noted that the two chemicals were effective because they acted as antagonists for the PPAR-gamma protein, which controls glucose metabolism and fatty cell activation. The chemicals bind to the protein but don’t activate it, meaning fat is unable to build up in the cells. No fat means no hepatic steatosis, which means no liver disease.
The researchers caution that more research is needed to determine the chemicals’ effectiveness in humans, but the classic line from a great animated philosopher still holds true: Alcohol may really be the source of, and solution to, all of life’s problems.
Life’s great mysteries, from A to zinc
Thanks to science, we now have answers to what were once unanswerable questions: Is Jello a solid or a liquid? If someone leads but no one follows, are they just out for a walk? Does zinc inhibit or promote the growth of kidney stones? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? (Turns out science really did answer this one.)
If you’re anything like us, then you’ve been following the big debate on the two competing theories involving the role of zinc in kidney stone formation for years. One theory says that zinc stops the growth of calcium oxalate crystals that make up stones. The other says that zinc alters the surfaces of crystals, which encourages growth.
We can’t stand the suspense any longer, so here goes: The answer to “does zinc inhibit or promote the growth of kidney stones?” is … yes.
“What we see with zinc is something we haven’t seen before. It does slow down calcium oxalate crystal growth and at the same time it changes the surface of the crystals, causing defects in the form of intergrowths. These abnormalities create centers for new crystals to nucleate and grow,” said senior author Jeffrey Rimer, PhD, of the University of Houston.
In vitro experimentation, computational modeling, and atomic force microscopy don’t lie: Zinc ions have a unique ability “to alter the termination of crystal surfaces.” They tried alternative ions found in urine, including magnesium, and there was no effect on crystal formation.
With this one great mystery now solved, we contacted Dr. Rimer to ask him about the whole “sound of one hand clapping” business. He hasn’t cracked that one yet, but he did want to speak to our supervisor. So many of life’s unanswered questions, so little time. Oh well.
Babies’ ‘gut instinct’ to cry
At some point or another, you’ve probably been told not to “be such a baby” when you were scared of something. If you’ve been called a crybaby, it may be an indicator that you had a different gut microbiome as an infant.
Investigators from Michigan State University and the University of North Carolina say that babies who react more strongly to scary situations have different gut microbiomes compared with babies who don’t have such a strong reaction. The way babies react to scary situations can say a lot about their future, and there is even some evidence that gut microbiomes may have something to do with mental health.
Physicians who support neurologic development may one day be able to use this research on gut microbiomes to help monitor people’s neurological health. “This early developmental period is a time of tremendous opportunity for promoting healthy brain development. The microbiome is an exciting new target that can be potentially used for that,” said Rebecca Knickmeyer of MSU, leader of the study, which was published in Nature Communications. And loyal LOTME followers already know about the OpenBiome Microbiome Library, aka the “Amazon of bacteria.”
So the next time someone tells you not to be such a baby when you’re scared of something, tell them it’s not your fault. Blame it on your gut microbiome!
Busting the myth of skipping breakfast
Your mother told you that breakfast was the most important meal of the day. Cereal marketing teams banked on that, selling breakfast to millions of people based on a common turn of phrase like “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.” Well, what if the notion of breakfast’s importance isn’t just marketing BS?
A new study suggests that adults who don’t eat breakfast are setting themselves up for a nutritional gap. Common breakfast foods pack a ton of calcium, fiber, and vitamin C from milk, cereals, and fruit. Christopher Taylor, PhD, senior author of the study and professor of dietetics at the Ohio State University, Columbus, said that if you’re not getting those nutrients from foods at breakfast, there’s a tendency to skip them throughout the rest of your day.
Data from a sample of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey – 30,889 adults aged 19 and older who participated between 2005 and 2016 – showed that 15.2% of participants reported skipping breakfast.
The research team then estimated nutrient consumption using federal dietary studies and guidelines and compared it to Food and Nutrition Board of National Academies nutrient recommendations. The breakfast skippers, they determined, were missing out on pronounced levels of fiber, magnesium, iron, calcium, and vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, C, and D and were more likely to fall prey to lower-quality snacking. Cue those Oreos at 3 pm.
You may get more total calories within the day by eating breakfast, but your lunch, dinner, and snacks are much larger when you skip it. So the case of breakfast being the most important meal of the day checks out. Who knew that Tony the Tiger – and Mom – were actually on to something?
The bitter taste of a healthy liver
Alcohol and liver disease. They go together like, well, alcohol and liver disease. But alcohol isn’t the only reason people get liver disease, and now there’s a potential new treatment for people with hepatic steatosis on the way to becoming nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: beer.
Okay, not literally beer, but a pair of compounds derived from hops, the plant that gives beer its color and bitter flavor. In a study published in eLife, researchers from Oregon State University fed mice either a low-fat diet or a high-fat diet to induce hepatic steatosis, with some on the high-fat diet receiving either xanthohumol, a prenylated flavonoid from the hop plant, or tetrahydroxanthohumol, a hydrogenated derivative of xanthohumol.
Mice that received tetrahydroxanthohumol not only gained weight at a far slower rate than that of mice on the normal high-fat diet, their blood sugar remained stable; xanthohumol was similarly effective if the dosage was higher. The researchers noted that the two chemicals were effective because they acted as antagonists for the PPAR-gamma protein, which controls glucose metabolism and fatty cell activation. The chemicals bind to the protein but don’t activate it, meaning fat is unable to build up in the cells. No fat means no hepatic steatosis, which means no liver disease.
The researchers caution that more research is needed to determine the chemicals’ effectiveness in humans, but the classic line from a great animated philosopher still holds true: Alcohol may really be the source of, and solution to, all of life’s problems.
Life’s great mysteries, from A to zinc
Thanks to science, we now have answers to what were once unanswerable questions: Is Jello a solid or a liquid? If someone leads but no one follows, are they just out for a walk? Does zinc inhibit or promote the growth of kidney stones? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? (Turns out science really did answer this one.)
If you’re anything like us, then you’ve been following the big debate on the two competing theories involving the role of zinc in kidney stone formation for years. One theory says that zinc stops the growth of calcium oxalate crystals that make up stones. The other says that zinc alters the surfaces of crystals, which encourages growth.
We can’t stand the suspense any longer, so here goes: The answer to “does zinc inhibit or promote the growth of kidney stones?” is … yes.
“What we see with zinc is something we haven’t seen before. It does slow down calcium oxalate crystal growth and at the same time it changes the surface of the crystals, causing defects in the form of intergrowths. These abnormalities create centers for new crystals to nucleate and grow,” said senior author Jeffrey Rimer, PhD, of the University of Houston.
In vitro experimentation, computational modeling, and atomic force microscopy don’t lie: Zinc ions have a unique ability “to alter the termination of crystal surfaces.” They tried alternative ions found in urine, including magnesium, and there was no effect on crystal formation.
With this one great mystery now solved, we contacted Dr. Rimer to ask him about the whole “sound of one hand clapping” business. He hasn’t cracked that one yet, but he did want to speak to our supervisor. So many of life’s unanswered questions, so little time. Oh well.
Babies’ ‘gut instinct’ to cry
At some point or another, you’ve probably been told not to “be such a baby” when you were scared of something. If you’ve been called a crybaby, it may be an indicator that you had a different gut microbiome as an infant.
Investigators from Michigan State University and the University of North Carolina say that babies who react more strongly to scary situations have different gut microbiomes compared with babies who don’t have such a strong reaction. The way babies react to scary situations can say a lot about their future, and there is even some evidence that gut microbiomes may have something to do with mental health.
Physicians who support neurologic development may one day be able to use this research on gut microbiomes to help monitor people’s neurological health. “This early developmental period is a time of tremendous opportunity for promoting healthy brain development. The microbiome is an exciting new target that can be potentially used for that,” said Rebecca Knickmeyer of MSU, leader of the study, which was published in Nature Communications. And loyal LOTME followers already know about the OpenBiome Microbiome Library, aka the “Amazon of bacteria.”
So the next time someone tells you not to be such a baby when you’re scared of something, tell them it’s not your fault. Blame it on your gut microbiome!
Busting the myth of skipping breakfast
Your mother told you that breakfast was the most important meal of the day. Cereal marketing teams banked on that, selling breakfast to millions of people based on a common turn of phrase like “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.” Well, what if the notion of breakfast’s importance isn’t just marketing BS?
A new study suggests that adults who don’t eat breakfast are setting themselves up for a nutritional gap. Common breakfast foods pack a ton of calcium, fiber, and vitamin C from milk, cereals, and fruit. Christopher Taylor, PhD, senior author of the study and professor of dietetics at the Ohio State University, Columbus, said that if you’re not getting those nutrients from foods at breakfast, there’s a tendency to skip them throughout the rest of your day.
Data from a sample of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey – 30,889 adults aged 19 and older who participated between 2005 and 2016 – showed that 15.2% of participants reported skipping breakfast.
The research team then estimated nutrient consumption using federal dietary studies and guidelines and compared it to Food and Nutrition Board of National Academies nutrient recommendations. The breakfast skippers, they determined, were missing out on pronounced levels of fiber, magnesium, iron, calcium, and vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, C, and D and were more likely to fall prey to lower-quality snacking. Cue those Oreos at 3 pm.
You may get more total calories within the day by eating breakfast, but your lunch, dinner, and snacks are much larger when you skip it. So the case of breakfast being the most important meal of the day checks out. Who knew that Tony the Tiger – and Mom – were actually on to something?
The bitter taste of a healthy liver
Alcohol and liver disease. They go together like, well, alcohol and liver disease. But alcohol isn’t the only reason people get liver disease, and now there’s a potential new treatment for people with hepatic steatosis on the way to becoming nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: beer.
Okay, not literally beer, but a pair of compounds derived from hops, the plant that gives beer its color and bitter flavor. In a study published in eLife, researchers from Oregon State University fed mice either a low-fat diet or a high-fat diet to induce hepatic steatosis, with some on the high-fat diet receiving either xanthohumol, a prenylated flavonoid from the hop plant, or tetrahydroxanthohumol, a hydrogenated derivative of xanthohumol.
Mice that received tetrahydroxanthohumol not only gained weight at a far slower rate than that of mice on the normal high-fat diet, their blood sugar remained stable; xanthohumol was similarly effective if the dosage was higher. The researchers noted that the two chemicals were effective because they acted as antagonists for the PPAR-gamma protein, which controls glucose metabolism and fatty cell activation. The chemicals bind to the protein but don’t activate it, meaning fat is unable to build up in the cells. No fat means no hepatic steatosis, which means no liver disease.
The researchers caution that more research is needed to determine the chemicals’ effectiveness in humans, but the classic line from a great animated philosopher still holds true: Alcohol may really be the source of, and solution to, all of life’s problems.
Life’s great mysteries, from A to zinc
Thanks to science, we now have answers to what were once unanswerable questions: Is Jello a solid or a liquid? If someone leads but no one follows, are they just out for a walk? Does zinc inhibit or promote the growth of kidney stones? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? (Turns out science really did answer this one.)
If you’re anything like us, then you’ve been following the big debate on the two competing theories involving the role of zinc in kidney stone formation for years. One theory says that zinc stops the growth of calcium oxalate crystals that make up stones. The other says that zinc alters the surfaces of crystals, which encourages growth.
We can’t stand the suspense any longer, so here goes: The answer to “does zinc inhibit or promote the growth of kidney stones?” is … yes.
“What we see with zinc is something we haven’t seen before. It does slow down calcium oxalate crystal growth and at the same time it changes the surface of the crystals, causing defects in the form of intergrowths. These abnormalities create centers for new crystals to nucleate and grow,” said senior author Jeffrey Rimer, PhD, of the University of Houston.
In vitro experimentation, computational modeling, and atomic force microscopy don’t lie: Zinc ions have a unique ability “to alter the termination of crystal surfaces.” They tried alternative ions found in urine, including magnesium, and there was no effect on crystal formation.
With this one great mystery now solved, we contacted Dr. Rimer to ask him about the whole “sound of one hand clapping” business. He hasn’t cracked that one yet, but he did want to speak to our supervisor. So many of life’s unanswered questions, so little time. Oh well.
Babies’ ‘gut instinct’ to cry
At some point or another, you’ve probably been told not to “be such a baby” when you were scared of something. If you’ve been called a crybaby, it may be an indicator that you had a different gut microbiome as an infant.
Investigators from Michigan State University and the University of North Carolina say that babies who react more strongly to scary situations have different gut microbiomes compared with babies who don’t have such a strong reaction. The way babies react to scary situations can say a lot about their future, and there is even some evidence that gut microbiomes may have something to do with mental health.
Physicians who support neurologic development may one day be able to use this research on gut microbiomes to help monitor people’s neurological health. “This early developmental period is a time of tremendous opportunity for promoting healthy brain development. The microbiome is an exciting new target that can be potentially used for that,” said Rebecca Knickmeyer of MSU, leader of the study, which was published in Nature Communications. And loyal LOTME followers already know about the OpenBiome Microbiome Library, aka the “Amazon of bacteria.”
So the next time someone tells you not to be such a baby when you’re scared of something, tell them it’s not your fault. Blame it on your gut microbiome!
Back-to-school threat: Missed vaccinations in children, teens
U.S. children and adolescents may be at higher risk for vaccine-preventable diseases this fall as vaccination levels have not caught up with prepandemic coverage, according to a study published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Pediatric outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases have the potential to derail efforts to reopen schools for the 2021-22 academic year and further delay nationwide efforts to return students to the classroom,” wrote Bhavini Patel Murthy, MD, with the immunization services division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and colleagues.
The number of children getting routine vaccinations plummeted between March and May 2020, compared with the same months in 2019. Although vaccination rates increased again from June 2020 to September 2020, the rebound was not enough to reach prepandemic levels, according to the study.
At the beginning of the June–September 2020 period, the news was good, the authors wrote. After most stay-at-home orders were lifted, the number of weekly routine pediatric vaccinations started to approach, and even surpass, baseline prepandemic levels in most of the 10 jurisdictions studied.
“However,” the authors wrote, “across all age groups and across all vaccine types, none of the jurisdictions demonstrated a sustained or prolonged increase in the number of weekly doses administered above prepandemic administration levels, which would have been necessary to catch up children and adolescents who missed routine vaccinations.”
To overcome the gap, the authors said that clinicians should take the initiative. “Health care providers should assess the vaccination status of all pediatric patients, including adolescents, and contact those who are behind schedule to ensure that all children are fully vaccinated.”
As COVID-19 vaccinations become more readily available to children, the CDC recommends that providers consider giving COVID-19 shots along with other routinely recommended vaccines.
Martha Perry, MD, associate professor and medical director at the University of North Carolina Children’s Primary Care Clinic, Chapel Hill, said in an interview that getting the message out about the need to get children and adolescents caught up may require a national messaging campaign similar to that for COVID-19 vaccinations, as well as opening mass vaccination sites rather than families seeking vaccinations from individual providers.
She noted that, although schools may offer a checks and balances system for required vaccinations, children who are not yet school age depend on families getting individual appointments.
Size of the gaps
The MMWR article shows that the shortfall in vaccinations in June–September 2020, compared with those months the year before are striking.
For children younger than 2 years old and aged 2-6 years, diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DtaP) vaccinations declined an average of 9.1% and 6.7%, respectively.
Among children aged 12-23 months and 2-8 years, MMR vaccinations decreased 8.8% and 11.3%, respectively.
Among children aged 9-12 years and adolescents 13-17 years, human papillomavirus vaccinations decreased an average 12.2% and 28.1%, respectively. Among the same age groups, Tdap vaccinations dropped 21.3% and 30.0%, respectively.
Dr. Perry said that, although all the shortfalls are important, lags in vaccinations for measles and pertussis are particularly alarming in light of outbreaks in recent years.
Additionally, she said, as COVID-19 restrictions are lifting, some of the mitigation strategies, such as mask wearing, that kept other diseases at bay will not be in place, heightening the risk for infection.
The authors chose to measure weekly doses in March–May 2020, and June–September 2020 because many jurisdictions imposed and then lifted stay-at-home orders during these times. They analyzed data from 10 jurisdictions with high-performing information systems (Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York City, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin).
Adults missing vaccinations as well
Another analysis, commissioned by GlaxoSmithKline and conducted by Avalere Health, calculated 8.8 million missed adolescent vaccine doses and 17.2 million missed adult vaccine doses as a result of the pandemic and ongoing government restrictions and public health measures.
That study examined claims for CDC-recommended vaccines across commercial, managed Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare fee-for-service Part B for January–November 2020, compared with the same period in 2019.
It also found that vaccine claims remain well below 2019 levels. Total noninfluenza vaccine claims submissions were down by between 13% and 35% among adolescents and 17% and 40% among adults, compared with the same period in 2019.
Dr. Perry said it will be critical for schools across the nation to enforce their policies on requiring up-to-date vaccinations even if online attendance is offered.
The workforce needed for this will be challenging, she noted.
“We’ve lost a lot of workforce in the health care field in the pandemic for a variety of reasons and it may be challenging to fill those positions,” she said.
She also said the study underlines the importance of each state having a vaccine registry so each provider can determine what vaccinations a child needs.
The study authors and Dr. Perry reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
U.S. children and adolescents may be at higher risk for vaccine-preventable diseases this fall as vaccination levels have not caught up with prepandemic coverage, according to a study published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Pediatric outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases have the potential to derail efforts to reopen schools for the 2021-22 academic year and further delay nationwide efforts to return students to the classroom,” wrote Bhavini Patel Murthy, MD, with the immunization services division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and colleagues.
The number of children getting routine vaccinations plummeted between March and May 2020, compared with the same months in 2019. Although vaccination rates increased again from June 2020 to September 2020, the rebound was not enough to reach prepandemic levels, according to the study.
At the beginning of the June–September 2020 period, the news was good, the authors wrote. After most stay-at-home orders were lifted, the number of weekly routine pediatric vaccinations started to approach, and even surpass, baseline prepandemic levels in most of the 10 jurisdictions studied.
“However,” the authors wrote, “across all age groups and across all vaccine types, none of the jurisdictions demonstrated a sustained or prolonged increase in the number of weekly doses administered above prepandemic administration levels, which would have been necessary to catch up children and adolescents who missed routine vaccinations.”
To overcome the gap, the authors said that clinicians should take the initiative. “Health care providers should assess the vaccination status of all pediatric patients, including adolescents, and contact those who are behind schedule to ensure that all children are fully vaccinated.”
As COVID-19 vaccinations become more readily available to children, the CDC recommends that providers consider giving COVID-19 shots along with other routinely recommended vaccines.
Martha Perry, MD, associate professor and medical director at the University of North Carolina Children’s Primary Care Clinic, Chapel Hill, said in an interview that getting the message out about the need to get children and adolescents caught up may require a national messaging campaign similar to that for COVID-19 vaccinations, as well as opening mass vaccination sites rather than families seeking vaccinations from individual providers.
She noted that, although schools may offer a checks and balances system for required vaccinations, children who are not yet school age depend on families getting individual appointments.
Size of the gaps
The MMWR article shows that the shortfall in vaccinations in June–September 2020, compared with those months the year before are striking.
For children younger than 2 years old and aged 2-6 years, diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DtaP) vaccinations declined an average of 9.1% and 6.7%, respectively.
Among children aged 12-23 months and 2-8 years, MMR vaccinations decreased 8.8% and 11.3%, respectively.
Among children aged 9-12 years and adolescents 13-17 years, human papillomavirus vaccinations decreased an average 12.2% and 28.1%, respectively. Among the same age groups, Tdap vaccinations dropped 21.3% and 30.0%, respectively.
Dr. Perry said that, although all the shortfalls are important, lags in vaccinations for measles and pertussis are particularly alarming in light of outbreaks in recent years.
Additionally, she said, as COVID-19 restrictions are lifting, some of the mitigation strategies, such as mask wearing, that kept other diseases at bay will not be in place, heightening the risk for infection.
The authors chose to measure weekly doses in March–May 2020, and June–September 2020 because many jurisdictions imposed and then lifted stay-at-home orders during these times. They analyzed data from 10 jurisdictions with high-performing information systems (Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York City, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin).
Adults missing vaccinations as well
Another analysis, commissioned by GlaxoSmithKline and conducted by Avalere Health, calculated 8.8 million missed adolescent vaccine doses and 17.2 million missed adult vaccine doses as a result of the pandemic and ongoing government restrictions and public health measures.
That study examined claims for CDC-recommended vaccines across commercial, managed Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare fee-for-service Part B for January–November 2020, compared with the same period in 2019.
It also found that vaccine claims remain well below 2019 levels. Total noninfluenza vaccine claims submissions were down by between 13% and 35% among adolescents and 17% and 40% among adults, compared with the same period in 2019.
Dr. Perry said it will be critical for schools across the nation to enforce their policies on requiring up-to-date vaccinations even if online attendance is offered.
The workforce needed for this will be challenging, she noted.
“We’ve lost a lot of workforce in the health care field in the pandemic for a variety of reasons and it may be challenging to fill those positions,” she said.
She also said the study underlines the importance of each state having a vaccine registry so each provider can determine what vaccinations a child needs.
The study authors and Dr. Perry reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
U.S. children and adolescents may be at higher risk for vaccine-preventable diseases this fall as vaccination levels have not caught up with prepandemic coverage, according to a study published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Pediatric outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases have the potential to derail efforts to reopen schools for the 2021-22 academic year and further delay nationwide efforts to return students to the classroom,” wrote Bhavini Patel Murthy, MD, with the immunization services division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and colleagues.
The number of children getting routine vaccinations plummeted between March and May 2020, compared with the same months in 2019. Although vaccination rates increased again from June 2020 to September 2020, the rebound was not enough to reach prepandemic levels, according to the study.
At the beginning of the June–September 2020 period, the news was good, the authors wrote. After most stay-at-home orders were lifted, the number of weekly routine pediatric vaccinations started to approach, and even surpass, baseline prepandemic levels in most of the 10 jurisdictions studied.
“However,” the authors wrote, “across all age groups and across all vaccine types, none of the jurisdictions demonstrated a sustained or prolonged increase in the number of weekly doses administered above prepandemic administration levels, which would have been necessary to catch up children and adolescents who missed routine vaccinations.”
To overcome the gap, the authors said that clinicians should take the initiative. “Health care providers should assess the vaccination status of all pediatric patients, including adolescents, and contact those who are behind schedule to ensure that all children are fully vaccinated.”
As COVID-19 vaccinations become more readily available to children, the CDC recommends that providers consider giving COVID-19 shots along with other routinely recommended vaccines.
Martha Perry, MD, associate professor and medical director at the University of North Carolina Children’s Primary Care Clinic, Chapel Hill, said in an interview that getting the message out about the need to get children and adolescents caught up may require a national messaging campaign similar to that for COVID-19 vaccinations, as well as opening mass vaccination sites rather than families seeking vaccinations from individual providers.
She noted that, although schools may offer a checks and balances system for required vaccinations, children who are not yet school age depend on families getting individual appointments.
Size of the gaps
The MMWR article shows that the shortfall in vaccinations in June–September 2020, compared with those months the year before are striking.
For children younger than 2 years old and aged 2-6 years, diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DtaP) vaccinations declined an average of 9.1% and 6.7%, respectively.
Among children aged 12-23 months and 2-8 years, MMR vaccinations decreased 8.8% and 11.3%, respectively.
Among children aged 9-12 years and adolescents 13-17 years, human papillomavirus vaccinations decreased an average 12.2% and 28.1%, respectively. Among the same age groups, Tdap vaccinations dropped 21.3% and 30.0%, respectively.
Dr. Perry said that, although all the shortfalls are important, lags in vaccinations for measles and pertussis are particularly alarming in light of outbreaks in recent years.
Additionally, she said, as COVID-19 restrictions are lifting, some of the mitigation strategies, such as mask wearing, that kept other diseases at bay will not be in place, heightening the risk for infection.
The authors chose to measure weekly doses in March–May 2020, and June–September 2020 because many jurisdictions imposed and then lifted stay-at-home orders during these times. They analyzed data from 10 jurisdictions with high-performing information systems (Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York City, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin).
Adults missing vaccinations as well
Another analysis, commissioned by GlaxoSmithKline and conducted by Avalere Health, calculated 8.8 million missed adolescent vaccine doses and 17.2 million missed adult vaccine doses as a result of the pandemic and ongoing government restrictions and public health measures.
That study examined claims for CDC-recommended vaccines across commercial, managed Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare fee-for-service Part B for January–November 2020, compared with the same period in 2019.
It also found that vaccine claims remain well below 2019 levels. Total noninfluenza vaccine claims submissions were down by between 13% and 35% among adolescents and 17% and 40% among adults, compared with the same period in 2019.
Dr. Perry said it will be critical for schools across the nation to enforce their policies on requiring up-to-date vaccinations even if online attendance is offered.
The workforce needed for this will be challenging, she noted.
“We’ve lost a lot of workforce in the health care field in the pandemic for a variety of reasons and it may be challenging to fill those positions,” she said.
She also said the study underlines the importance of each state having a vaccine registry so each provider can determine what vaccinations a child needs.
The study authors and Dr. Perry reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AMA acknowledges medical education racism of past, vows better future
The report received overwhelming support at the House of Delegates, the AMA’s legislative policy making body, during an online meeting held June 13.
The Council on Medical Education’s report recommends that the AMA acknowledge the harm caused by the Flexner Report, which was issued in 1910 and has since shaped medical education. The Flexner Report caused harm not only to historically Black medical schools, but also to physician workforce diversity and to the clinical outcomes of minority and marginalized patients, according to the medical education advisory body.
The council also recommended conducting a study on medical education with a focus on health equity and racial justice, improving diversity among healthcare workers, and fixing inequitable outcomes from minorities and marginalized patient populations.
The report comes on the heels of the resignation of JAMA editor-in-chief Howard Bauchner, MD, and another high-ranking editor following a February podcast on systemic racism in medicine. The AMA has since released a strategic plan addressing racism and health inequity that has divided membership.
Flexner Report’s effect on physician diversity
The Council on Medical Education’s report observed that as a result of the Flexner Report’s recommendations, 89 medical schools, including 5 of the 7 existing medical schools training Black physicians, were closed because they didn’t meet the report’s standards. In addition, the report created a limited role for Black physicians while “hint[ing] that Black physicians possessed less potential and ability than their White counterparts,” read the Council’s report.
In addition to consigning the role of the Black physician to “educating the [Black] race to know and to practice fundamental hygienic principles,” the Flexner Report also observed that “a well-taught negro sanitarian will be immensely useful,” per the Council’s report.
The impact of the closure of medical schools training Black physicians was dramatic. According to the Council’s report, in 1964, 93% of medical students in the United States were men and 97% of those students were non-Hispanic White.
Today, 56% of physicians identify as White, 17% as Asian, 6% as Hispanic, and 5% as Black or African American, per the Association of American Medical Colleges; nearly 14% of active physicians didn’t report their race in the survey. By means of contrast, the U.S. population in 2019 was 60% White, 19% Latino/Hispanic, 13% Black or African American, and 6% Asian American, according to the Brookings Institute.
Abraham Flexner, who wrote the Flexner Report, is often referred to as the “father of modern medical education,” according to the AAMC. In November, the AAMC observed that the Flexner Report contained racist and sexist ideas and that his work contributed to the closure of historically Black medical schools. Both statements were included in AAMC’s announcement about the removal of Flexner’s name from its most prestigious award. As of January, the award is now called the AAMC Award for Excellence in Medical Education.
Pathway programs can increase diversity
Pathway programs, which leverage targeted milestones along the journey to becoming a physician in order to increase diversity, were an area of focus in the council’s report. These programs “can exert a meaningful, positive effect on student outcomes and increase diversity across various levels of educational settings,” according to its report.
Centers of Excellence, which provides grants for mentorship and training programs, is one of many pathway programs. During the 2018-2019 academic year, Centers of Excellence supported more than 1,300 trainees – 99% of them were underrepresented minorities and 64% came from financially or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. In 2006, federal funding was cut to these programs and the number of Centers of Excellence fell.
Still, the report cites the passage of federal funding in 2020 of $50 million for public institutions of higher education that train physicians; educational institutions in states with a projected primary care shortage in 2025 are given priority in the grant-funding process.
AMA council’s report garners support from delegates
Delegates voiced overwhelming support of the council’s report during the June 13 meeting. Lou Edje, MD, a Perrysburgh, Ohio–based family physician, voiced strong support for the council’s report, in particular its recommendations that recognize the harm caused by the Flexner Report. Dr. Edje observed that the Flexner Report, with its elimination of five of seven Black medical schools, “[set] back admissions of Black students into medicine by 50 years.”
“Empathy is what we are called to have as physicians. I implore you to simply substitute your ethnicity into these quotes to help understand the historic need for health equity in medicine today. This CME report is part of the antidote to Flexner. We support [it] fully,” concluded Dr. Edje, who spoke for the Great Lakes States Coalition of the AMA.
Rohan Khazanchi, a medical student at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and a member of the council, said, “Our broad attempt with this report was twofold: to fill gaps in AMA policy with evidence-based recommendations which could improve diversity in our health workforce and, second, to enhance our organization’s vision for truth, reconciliation, and healing to redress the historic marginalization of minoritized physicians in medicine.”
According to an AMA spokesperson, the House of Delegates will vote on this and other policies this week, after which the policies are considered final.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The report received overwhelming support at the House of Delegates, the AMA’s legislative policy making body, during an online meeting held June 13.
The Council on Medical Education’s report recommends that the AMA acknowledge the harm caused by the Flexner Report, which was issued in 1910 and has since shaped medical education. The Flexner Report caused harm not only to historically Black medical schools, but also to physician workforce diversity and to the clinical outcomes of minority and marginalized patients, according to the medical education advisory body.
The council also recommended conducting a study on medical education with a focus on health equity and racial justice, improving diversity among healthcare workers, and fixing inequitable outcomes from minorities and marginalized patient populations.
The report comes on the heels of the resignation of JAMA editor-in-chief Howard Bauchner, MD, and another high-ranking editor following a February podcast on systemic racism in medicine. The AMA has since released a strategic plan addressing racism and health inequity that has divided membership.
Flexner Report’s effect on physician diversity
The Council on Medical Education’s report observed that as a result of the Flexner Report’s recommendations, 89 medical schools, including 5 of the 7 existing medical schools training Black physicians, were closed because they didn’t meet the report’s standards. In addition, the report created a limited role for Black physicians while “hint[ing] that Black physicians possessed less potential and ability than their White counterparts,” read the Council’s report.
In addition to consigning the role of the Black physician to “educating the [Black] race to know and to practice fundamental hygienic principles,” the Flexner Report also observed that “a well-taught negro sanitarian will be immensely useful,” per the Council’s report.
The impact of the closure of medical schools training Black physicians was dramatic. According to the Council’s report, in 1964, 93% of medical students in the United States were men and 97% of those students were non-Hispanic White.
Today, 56% of physicians identify as White, 17% as Asian, 6% as Hispanic, and 5% as Black or African American, per the Association of American Medical Colleges; nearly 14% of active physicians didn’t report their race in the survey. By means of contrast, the U.S. population in 2019 was 60% White, 19% Latino/Hispanic, 13% Black or African American, and 6% Asian American, according to the Brookings Institute.
Abraham Flexner, who wrote the Flexner Report, is often referred to as the “father of modern medical education,” according to the AAMC. In November, the AAMC observed that the Flexner Report contained racist and sexist ideas and that his work contributed to the closure of historically Black medical schools. Both statements were included in AAMC’s announcement about the removal of Flexner’s name from its most prestigious award. As of January, the award is now called the AAMC Award for Excellence in Medical Education.
Pathway programs can increase diversity
Pathway programs, which leverage targeted milestones along the journey to becoming a physician in order to increase diversity, were an area of focus in the council’s report. These programs “can exert a meaningful, positive effect on student outcomes and increase diversity across various levels of educational settings,” according to its report.
Centers of Excellence, which provides grants for mentorship and training programs, is one of many pathway programs. During the 2018-2019 academic year, Centers of Excellence supported more than 1,300 trainees – 99% of them were underrepresented minorities and 64% came from financially or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. In 2006, federal funding was cut to these programs and the number of Centers of Excellence fell.
Still, the report cites the passage of federal funding in 2020 of $50 million for public institutions of higher education that train physicians; educational institutions in states with a projected primary care shortage in 2025 are given priority in the grant-funding process.
AMA council’s report garners support from delegates
Delegates voiced overwhelming support of the council’s report during the June 13 meeting. Lou Edje, MD, a Perrysburgh, Ohio–based family physician, voiced strong support for the council’s report, in particular its recommendations that recognize the harm caused by the Flexner Report. Dr. Edje observed that the Flexner Report, with its elimination of five of seven Black medical schools, “[set] back admissions of Black students into medicine by 50 years.”
“Empathy is what we are called to have as physicians. I implore you to simply substitute your ethnicity into these quotes to help understand the historic need for health equity in medicine today. This CME report is part of the antidote to Flexner. We support [it] fully,” concluded Dr. Edje, who spoke for the Great Lakes States Coalition of the AMA.
Rohan Khazanchi, a medical student at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and a member of the council, said, “Our broad attempt with this report was twofold: to fill gaps in AMA policy with evidence-based recommendations which could improve diversity in our health workforce and, second, to enhance our organization’s vision for truth, reconciliation, and healing to redress the historic marginalization of minoritized physicians in medicine.”
According to an AMA spokesperson, the House of Delegates will vote on this and other policies this week, after which the policies are considered final.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The report received overwhelming support at the House of Delegates, the AMA’s legislative policy making body, during an online meeting held June 13.
The Council on Medical Education’s report recommends that the AMA acknowledge the harm caused by the Flexner Report, which was issued in 1910 and has since shaped medical education. The Flexner Report caused harm not only to historically Black medical schools, but also to physician workforce diversity and to the clinical outcomes of minority and marginalized patients, according to the medical education advisory body.
The council also recommended conducting a study on medical education with a focus on health equity and racial justice, improving diversity among healthcare workers, and fixing inequitable outcomes from minorities and marginalized patient populations.
The report comes on the heels of the resignation of JAMA editor-in-chief Howard Bauchner, MD, and another high-ranking editor following a February podcast on systemic racism in medicine. The AMA has since released a strategic plan addressing racism and health inequity that has divided membership.
Flexner Report’s effect on physician diversity
The Council on Medical Education’s report observed that as a result of the Flexner Report’s recommendations, 89 medical schools, including 5 of the 7 existing medical schools training Black physicians, were closed because they didn’t meet the report’s standards. In addition, the report created a limited role for Black physicians while “hint[ing] that Black physicians possessed less potential and ability than their White counterparts,” read the Council’s report.
In addition to consigning the role of the Black physician to “educating the [Black] race to know and to practice fundamental hygienic principles,” the Flexner Report also observed that “a well-taught negro sanitarian will be immensely useful,” per the Council’s report.
The impact of the closure of medical schools training Black physicians was dramatic. According to the Council’s report, in 1964, 93% of medical students in the United States were men and 97% of those students were non-Hispanic White.
Today, 56% of physicians identify as White, 17% as Asian, 6% as Hispanic, and 5% as Black or African American, per the Association of American Medical Colleges; nearly 14% of active physicians didn’t report their race in the survey. By means of contrast, the U.S. population in 2019 was 60% White, 19% Latino/Hispanic, 13% Black or African American, and 6% Asian American, according to the Brookings Institute.
Abraham Flexner, who wrote the Flexner Report, is often referred to as the “father of modern medical education,” according to the AAMC. In November, the AAMC observed that the Flexner Report contained racist and sexist ideas and that his work contributed to the closure of historically Black medical schools. Both statements were included in AAMC’s announcement about the removal of Flexner’s name from its most prestigious award. As of January, the award is now called the AAMC Award for Excellence in Medical Education.
Pathway programs can increase diversity
Pathway programs, which leverage targeted milestones along the journey to becoming a physician in order to increase diversity, were an area of focus in the council’s report. These programs “can exert a meaningful, positive effect on student outcomes and increase diversity across various levels of educational settings,” according to its report.
Centers of Excellence, which provides grants for mentorship and training programs, is one of many pathway programs. During the 2018-2019 academic year, Centers of Excellence supported more than 1,300 trainees – 99% of them were underrepresented minorities and 64% came from financially or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. In 2006, federal funding was cut to these programs and the number of Centers of Excellence fell.
Still, the report cites the passage of federal funding in 2020 of $50 million for public institutions of higher education that train physicians; educational institutions in states with a projected primary care shortage in 2025 are given priority in the grant-funding process.
AMA council’s report garners support from delegates
Delegates voiced overwhelming support of the council’s report during the June 13 meeting. Lou Edje, MD, a Perrysburgh, Ohio–based family physician, voiced strong support for the council’s report, in particular its recommendations that recognize the harm caused by the Flexner Report. Dr. Edje observed that the Flexner Report, with its elimination of five of seven Black medical schools, “[set] back admissions of Black students into medicine by 50 years.”
“Empathy is what we are called to have as physicians. I implore you to simply substitute your ethnicity into these quotes to help understand the historic need for health equity in medicine today. This CME report is part of the antidote to Flexner. We support [it] fully,” concluded Dr. Edje, who spoke for the Great Lakes States Coalition of the AMA.
Rohan Khazanchi, a medical student at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and a member of the council, said, “Our broad attempt with this report was twofold: to fill gaps in AMA policy with evidence-based recommendations which could improve diversity in our health workforce and, second, to enhance our organization’s vision for truth, reconciliation, and healing to redress the historic marginalization of minoritized physicians in medicine.”
According to an AMA spokesperson, the House of Delegates will vote on this and other policies this week, after which the policies are considered final.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘COVID toes’ chilblain-like lesions not related to COVID-19
from Italy.
These lesions are “most likely are benign” and resolve on their own after 2-6 weeks, Valentina Discepolo, MD, PhD, University of Naples Federico II, told this news organization.
“They do not seem to be the manifestation of systemic inflammatory or autoimmune phenomena. According to our experience, they should not require a SARS-CoV-2–specific molecular or serological test since in all cases in our series they were negative,” said Dr. Discepolo.
The study was published online June 10, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.
‘COVID toes’ a fallacy?
The temporal association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the increasing number of chilblain-like lesions has led some in the media to call it “COVID toes,” the investigators wrote. However, data on the association with SARS-CoV-2 are controversial.
For this report, Dr. Discepolo and colleagues evaluated 17 adolescents who presented with chilblain-like lesions of the toes during the first wave of the pandemic in southern Italy.
None had evidence of current, past, or local SARS-CoV-2 infection.
“In our experience, chilblain-like lesions are not a manifestation of COVID-19, as shown by negative serological and molecular specific for SARS-CoV2,” Dr. Discepolo said in an interview.
The lesions were bilaterally distributed in 16 adolescents (94.1%) and heel skin was involved in 7 (41.2%). Ulceration complicated one patient during the active phase of the disease, and desquamation developed over time in three patients (17.6%). Only two patients (11.8%) had concurrent involvement of the fingers.
Self-administered therapies included topical antibiotics and/or corticosteroids, disinfectants, and antifungal agents; systemic antibiotics or corticosteroids were used rarely.
None of the therapies substantially changed the course of the lesions. Duration was “extremely variable,” ranging from 49 to 145 days; however, at follow-up, all patients had full resolution.
Almost invariably, the lesions were characterized by a triad of red dots, white rosettes, and white streaks on an erythematous background, the investigators reported.
In more than half the patients (56%), red dots often appeared as dotted and comma-shaped congested vessels that surrounded the rosettes in the early stage of the lesions. In later stages, red dots were still present, but the rosettes had disappeared.
Although found inconsistently in inflammatory cutaneous conditions, these three signs do not characterize the dermoscopic picture of perniosis, suggesting a distinct disease process, the investigators said.
Don’t blame it on ischemia, clots
Histologic analysis revealed “remodeling of the dermal blood vessels with a lobular arrangement, wall thickening, and a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate,” they noted.
Punch biopsy of the involved skin mostly showed endothelial hyperplasia, mild lymphocytic infiltrate, and vessels’ architecture disruption with no papillary dermal edema or eosinophilic or neutrophilic infiltrate.
Pathology did not reveal any ischemic changes, which argues against systemic vasculopathy, Farzam Gorouhi, MD, from Kaiser Permanente, South Sacramento Medical Center, noted in a linked editorial. “Thus, this study provides further evidence against the thromboembolic nature of the presented pattern in adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Results of capillaroscopy, used to investigate structural changes in peripheral microcirculation, were either completely normal or showed rare ectasias, supporting a lack of systemic inflammatory process.
“The lack of capillaroscopic features of a major vasculopathic event in the study by Discepolo et al. argues against the ischemic nature of this disease and, thus, indicates that this presentation is not associated with systemic ischemia or an embolic event,” Dr. Gorouhi noted.
Chilblain-like lesions have been one of the most commonly described cutaneous manifestations during the COVID-19 pandemic, but their etiopathogenesis, including the role of SARS-CoV-2, has remained elusive, the investigators wrote.
The findings in this case series do not support the association of the lesions with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they concluded.
The fact that only three new cases of chilblain-like lesions were reported during the highest peaks of the pandemic further supports a lack of association with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they noted.
In addition, none of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and all three cases during the second wave occurred in the winter months, suggesting that exposure to the cold might, at least in some cases, trigger the skin lesions, the investigators said.
In line with this hypothesis, seven of the adolescents in this case series (41.2%) relapsed during the winter months while again testing negative for SARS-CoV-2.
“We believe that lifestyle modifications [reduced physical activity, microtraumatisms caused by walking barefoot at home] during the first strict lockdown played a role, likely promoting a local inflammatory process promoted by vascular stasis that led in genetically susceptible individuals to the onset of these lesions,” Dr. Discepolo said in an interview.
This research had no specific funding. The investigators and Dr. Gorouhi declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
from Italy.
These lesions are “most likely are benign” and resolve on their own after 2-6 weeks, Valentina Discepolo, MD, PhD, University of Naples Federico II, told this news organization.
“They do not seem to be the manifestation of systemic inflammatory or autoimmune phenomena. According to our experience, they should not require a SARS-CoV-2–specific molecular or serological test since in all cases in our series they were negative,” said Dr. Discepolo.
The study was published online June 10, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.
‘COVID toes’ a fallacy?
The temporal association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the increasing number of chilblain-like lesions has led some in the media to call it “COVID toes,” the investigators wrote. However, data on the association with SARS-CoV-2 are controversial.
For this report, Dr. Discepolo and colleagues evaluated 17 adolescents who presented with chilblain-like lesions of the toes during the first wave of the pandemic in southern Italy.
None had evidence of current, past, or local SARS-CoV-2 infection.
“In our experience, chilblain-like lesions are not a manifestation of COVID-19, as shown by negative serological and molecular specific for SARS-CoV2,” Dr. Discepolo said in an interview.
The lesions were bilaterally distributed in 16 adolescents (94.1%) and heel skin was involved in 7 (41.2%). Ulceration complicated one patient during the active phase of the disease, and desquamation developed over time in three patients (17.6%). Only two patients (11.8%) had concurrent involvement of the fingers.
Self-administered therapies included topical antibiotics and/or corticosteroids, disinfectants, and antifungal agents; systemic antibiotics or corticosteroids were used rarely.
None of the therapies substantially changed the course of the lesions. Duration was “extremely variable,” ranging from 49 to 145 days; however, at follow-up, all patients had full resolution.
Almost invariably, the lesions were characterized by a triad of red dots, white rosettes, and white streaks on an erythematous background, the investigators reported.
In more than half the patients (56%), red dots often appeared as dotted and comma-shaped congested vessels that surrounded the rosettes in the early stage of the lesions. In later stages, red dots were still present, but the rosettes had disappeared.
Although found inconsistently in inflammatory cutaneous conditions, these three signs do not characterize the dermoscopic picture of perniosis, suggesting a distinct disease process, the investigators said.
Don’t blame it on ischemia, clots
Histologic analysis revealed “remodeling of the dermal blood vessels with a lobular arrangement, wall thickening, and a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate,” they noted.
Punch biopsy of the involved skin mostly showed endothelial hyperplasia, mild lymphocytic infiltrate, and vessels’ architecture disruption with no papillary dermal edema or eosinophilic or neutrophilic infiltrate.
Pathology did not reveal any ischemic changes, which argues against systemic vasculopathy, Farzam Gorouhi, MD, from Kaiser Permanente, South Sacramento Medical Center, noted in a linked editorial. “Thus, this study provides further evidence against the thromboembolic nature of the presented pattern in adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Results of capillaroscopy, used to investigate structural changes in peripheral microcirculation, were either completely normal or showed rare ectasias, supporting a lack of systemic inflammatory process.
“The lack of capillaroscopic features of a major vasculopathic event in the study by Discepolo et al. argues against the ischemic nature of this disease and, thus, indicates that this presentation is not associated with systemic ischemia or an embolic event,” Dr. Gorouhi noted.
Chilblain-like lesions have been one of the most commonly described cutaneous manifestations during the COVID-19 pandemic, but their etiopathogenesis, including the role of SARS-CoV-2, has remained elusive, the investigators wrote.
The findings in this case series do not support the association of the lesions with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they concluded.
The fact that only three new cases of chilblain-like lesions were reported during the highest peaks of the pandemic further supports a lack of association with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they noted.
In addition, none of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and all three cases during the second wave occurred in the winter months, suggesting that exposure to the cold might, at least in some cases, trigger the skin lesions, the investigators said.
In line with this hypothesis, seven of the adolescents in this case series (41.2%) relapsed during the winter months while again testing negative for SARS-CoV-2.
“We believe that lifestyle modifications [reduced physical activity, microtraumatisms caused by walking barefoot at home] during the first strict lockdown played a role, likely promoting a local inflammatory process promoted by vascular stasis that led in genetically susceptible individuals to the onset of these lesions,” Dr. Discepolo said in an interview.
This research had no specific funding. The investigators and Dr. Gorouhi declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
from Italy.
These lesions are “most likely are benign” and resolve on their own after 2-6 weeks, Valentina Discepolo, MD, PhD, University of Naples Federico II, told this news organization.
“They do not seem to be the manifestation of systemic inflammatory or autoimmune phenomena. According to our experience, they should not require a SARS-CoV-2–specific molecular or serological test since in all cases in our series they were negative,” said Dr. Discepolo.
The study was published online June 10, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.
‘COVID toes’ a fallacy?
The temporal association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the increasing number of chilblain-like lesions has led some in the media to call it “COVID toes,” the investigators wrote. However, data on the association with SARS-CoV-2 are controversial.
For this report, Dr. Discepolo and colleagues evaluated 17 adolescents who presented with chilblain-like lesions of the toes during the first wave of the pandemic in southern Italy.
None had evidence of current, past, or local SARS-CoV-2 infection.
“In our experience, chilblain-like lesions are not a manifestation of COVID-19, as shown by negative serological and molecular specific for SARS-CoV2,” Dr. Discepolo said in an interview.
The lesions were bilaterally distributed in 16 adolescents (94.1%) and heel skin was involved in 7 (41.2%). Ulceration complicated one patient during the active phase of the disease, and desquamation developed over time in three patients (17.6%). Only two patients (11.8%) had concurrent involvement of the fingers.
Self-administered therapies included topical antibiotics and/or corticosteroids, disinfectants, and antifungal agents; systemic antibiotics or corticosteroids were used rarely.
None of the therapies substantially changed the course of the lesions. Duration was “extremely variable,” ranging from 49 to 145 days; however, at follow-up, all patients had full resolution.
Almost invariably, the lesions were characterized by a triad of red dots, white rosettes, and white streaks on an erythematous background, the investigators reported.
In more than half the patients (56%), red dots often appeared as dotted and comma-shaped congested vessels that surrounded the rosettes in the early stage of the lesions. In later stages, red dots were still present, but the rosettes had disappeared.
Although found inconsistently in inflammatory cutaneous conditions, these three signs do not characterize the dermoscopic picture of perniosis, suggesting a distinct disease process, the investigators said.
Don’t blame it on ischemia, clots
Histologic analysis revealed “remodeling of the dermal blood vessels with a lobular arrangement, wall thickening, and a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate,” they noted.
Punch biopsy of the involved skin mostly showed endothelial hyperplasia, mild lymphocytic infiltrate, and vessels’ architecture disruption with no papillary dermal edema or eosinophilic or neutrophilic infiltrate.
Pathology did not reveal any ischemic changes, which argues against systemic vasculopathy, Farzam Gorouhi, MD, from Kaiser Permanente, South Sacramento Medical Center, noted in a linked editorial. “Thus, this study provides further evidence against the thromboembolic nature of the presented pattern in adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Results of capillaroscopy, used to investigate structural changes in peripheral microcirculation, were either completely normal or showed rare ectasias, supporting a lack of systemic inflammatory process.
“The lack of capillaroscopic features of a major vasculopathic event in the study by Discepolo et al. argues against the ischemic nature of this disease and, thus, indicates that this presentation is not associated with systemic ischemia or an embolic event,” Dr. Gorouhi noted.
Chilblain-like lesions have been one of the most commonly described cutaneous manifestations during the COVID-19 pandemic, but their etiopathogenesis, including the role of SARS-CoV-2, has remained elusive, the investigators wrote.
The findings in this case series do not support the association of the lesions with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they concluded.
The fact that only three new cases of chilblain-like lesions were reported during the highest peaks of the pandemic further supports a lack of association with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they noted.
In addition, none of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and all three cases during the second wave occurred in the winter months, suggesting that exposure to the cold might, at least in some cases, trigger the skin lesions, the investigators said.
In line with this hypothesis, seven of the adolescents in this case series (41.2%) relapsed during the winter months while again testing negative for SARS-CoV-2.
“We believe that lifestyle modifications [reduced physical activity, microtraumatisms caused by walking barefoot at home] during the first strict lockdown played a role, likely promoting a local inflammatory process promoted by vascular stasis that led in genetically susceptible individuals to the onset of these lesions,” Dr. Discepolo said in an interview.
This research had no specific funding. The investigators and Dr. Gorouhi declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Prediction rule identifies low infection risk in febrile infants
A clinical prediction rule combining procalcitonin, absolute neutrophil count, and urinalysis effectively identified most febrile infants at low risk for serious bacterial infections, based on data from 702 individuals
The clinical prediction rule (CPR) described in 2019 in JAMA Pediatrics was developed by the Febrile Infant Working Group of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) to identify febrile infants at low risk for serious bacterial infections in order to reduce unnecessary procedures, antibiotics use, and hospitalization, according to April Clawson, MD, of Arkansas Children’s Hospital, Little Rock, and colleagues.
In a poster presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, the researchers conducted an external validation of the rule via a retrospective, observational study of febrile infants aged 60 days and younger who presented to an urban pediatric ED between October 2014 and June 2019. The study population included 702 infants with an average age of 36 days. Approximately 45% were female, and 60% were White. Fever was defined as 38° C or greater. Exclusion criteria were prematurity, receipt of antibiotics in the past 48 hours, presence of an indwelling medical device, and evidence of focal infection (not including otitis media); those who were critically ill at presentation or had a previous medical condition were excluded as well, the researchers said. A serious bacterial infection (SBI) was defined as a urinary tract infection (UTI), bacteremia, or bacterial meningitis.
Based on the CPR, a patient is considered low risk for an SBI if all the following criteria are met: normal urinalysis (defined as absence of leukocyte esterase, nitrite, and 5 or less white blood cells per high power field); an absolute neutrophil count of 4,090/mL or less; and procalcitonin of 1.71 ng/mL or less.
Overall, 62 infants (8.8%) were diagnosed with an SBI, similar to the 9.3% seen in the parent study of the CPR, Dr. Clawson said.
Of these, 42 had a UTI only (6%), 10 had bacteremia only (1.4%), and 1 had meningitis only (0.1%). Another five infants had UTI with bacteremia (0.7%), and four had bacteremia and meningitis (0.6%).
According to the CPR, 432 infants met criteria for low risk and 270 were considered high risk. A total of five infants who were classified as low risk had SBIs, including two with UTIs, two with bacteremia, and one with meningitis.
“The CPR derived and validated by Kupperman et al. had a decreased sensitivity for the patients in our study and missed some SBIs,” Dr. Clawson noted. “However, it had a strong negative predictive value, so it may still be a useful CPR.”
The sensitivity for the CPR in the parent study and the current study was 97.7 and 91.9, respectively; specificity was 60 and 66.7, respectively. The negative predictive values for the parent and current studies were 99.6 and 98.8, respectively, and the positive predictive values were 20.7 and 21.1.
The results support the potential of the CPR, but more external validation is needed, they said.
PECARN rule keeps it simple
“It has always been a challenge to identify infants with fever with serious bacterial infections when they are well-appearing,” Yashas Nathani, MD, of Oklahoma University, Oklahoma City, said in an interview. “The clinical prediction rule offers a simple, step-by-step approach for pediatricians and emergency medicine physicians to stratify infants in high or low risk categories for SBIs. However, as with everything, validation of protocols, guidelines and decision-making algorithms is extremely important, especially as more clinicians start to employ this CPR to their daily practice. This study objectively puts the CPR to the test and offers an independent external validation.
“Although this study had a lower sensitivity in identifying infants with SBI using the clinical prediction rule as compared to the original study, the robust validation of negative predictive value is extremely important and not surprising,” said Dr. Nathani. “The goal of this CPR is to identify infants with low-risk for SBI and the stated NPV helps clinicians in doing just that.”
Overall, “the clinical prediction rule is a fantastic resource for physicians to identify potentially sick infants with fever, especially the ones that appear well on initial evaluation,” said Dr. Nathani. However, “it is important to acknowledge that this is merely a guideline, and not an absolute rule. Clinicians also must remain cautious, as this rule does not incorporate the presence of viral pathogens as a factor.
“It is important to continue the scientific quest to refine our approach in identifying infants with serious bacterial infections when fever is the only presentation,” Dr. Nathani noted. “Additional research is needed to continue fine-tuning this CPR and the thresholds for procalcitonin and absolute neutrophil counts to improve the sensitivity and specificity.” Research also is needed to explore whether this CPR can be extended to incorporate viral testing, “as a large number of infants with fever have viral pathogens as the primary etiology,” he concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Nathani had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A clinical prediction rule combining procalcitonin, absolute neutrophil count, and urinalysis effectively identified most febrile infants at low risk for serious bacterial infections, based on data from 702 individuals
The clinical prediction rule (CPR) described in 2019 in JAMA Pediatrics was developed by the Febrile Infant Working Group of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) to identify febrile infants at low risk for serious bacterial infections in order to reduce unnecessary procedures, antibiotics use, and hospitalization, according to April Clawson, MD, of Arkansas Children’s Hospital, Little Rock, and colleagues.
In a poster presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, the researchers conducted an external validation of the rule via a retrospective, observational study of febrile infants aged 60 days and younger who presented to an urban pediatric ED between October 2014 and June 2019. The study population included 702 infants with an average age of 36 days. Approximately 45% were female, and 60% were White. Fever was defined as 38° C or greater. Exclusion criteria were prematurity, receipt of antibiotics in the past 48 hours, presence of an indwelling medical device, and evidence of focal infection (not including otitis media); those who were critically ill at presentation or had a previous medical condition were excluded as well, the researchers said. A serious bacterial infection (SBI) was defined as a urinary tract infection (UTI), bacteremia, or bacterial meningitis.
Based on the CPR, a patient is considered low risk for an SBI if all the following criteria are met: normal urinalysis (defined as absence of leukocyte esterase, nitrite, and 5 or less white blood cells per high power field); an absolute neutrophil count of 4,090/mL or less; and procalcitonin of 1.71 ng/mL or less.
Overall, 62 infants (8.8%) were diagnosed with an SBI, similar to the 9.3% seen in the parent study of the CPR, Dr. Clawson said.
Of these, 42 had a UTI only (6%), 10 had bacteremia only (1.4%), and 1 had meningitis only (0.1%). Another five infants had UTI with bacteremia (0.7%), and four had bacteremia and meningitis (0.6%).
According to the CPR, 432 infants met criteria for low risk and 270 were considered high risk. A total of five infants who were classified as low risk had SBIs, including two with UTIs, two with bacteremia, and one with meningitis.
“The CPR derived and validated by Kupperman et al. had a decreased sensitivity for the patients in our study and missed some SBIs,” Dr. Clawson noted. “However, it had a strong negative predictive value, so it may still be a useful CPR.”
The sensitivity for the CPR in the parent study and the current study was 97.7 and 91.9, respectively; specificity was 60 and 66.7, respectively. The negative predictive values for the parent and current studies were 99.6 and 98.8, respectively, and the positive predictive values were 20.7 and 21.1.
The results support the potential of the CPR, but more external validation is needed, they said.
PECARN rule keeps it simple
“It has always been a challenge to identify infants with fever with serious bacterial infections when they are well-appearing,” Yashas Nathani, MD, of Oklahoma University, Oklahoma City, said in an interview. “The clinical prediction rule offers a simple, step-by-step approach for pediatricians and emergency medicine physicians to stratify infants in high or low risk categories for SBIs. However, as with everything, validation of protocols, guidelines and decision-making algorithms is extremely important, especially as more clinicians start to employ this CPR to their daily practice. This study objectively puts the CPR to the test and offers an independent external validation.
“Although this study had a lower sensitivity in identifying infants with SBI using the clinical prediction rule as compared to the original study, the robust validation of negative predictive value is extremely important and not surprising,” said Dr. Nathani. “The goal of this CPR is to identify infants with low-risk for SBI and the stated NPV helps clinicians in doing just that.”
Overall, “the clinical prediction rule is a fantastic resource for physicians to identify potentially sick infants with fever, especially the ones that appear well on initial evaluation,” said Dr. Nathani. However, “it is important to acknowledge that this is merely a guideline, and not an absolute rule. Clinicians also must remain cautious, as this rule does not incorporate the presence of viral pathogens as a factor.
“It is important to continue the scientific quest to refine our approach in identifying infants with serious bacterial infections when fever is the only presentation,” Dr. Nathani noted. “Additional research is needed to continue fine-tuning this CPR and the thresholds for procalcitonin and absolute neutrophil counts to improve the sensitivity and specificity.” Research also is needed to explore whether this CPR can be extended to incorporate viral testing, “as a large number of infants with fever have viral pathogens as the primary etiology,” he concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Nathani had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A clinical prediction rule combining procalcitonin, absolute neutrophil count, and urinalysis effectively identified most febrile infants at low risk for serious bacterial infections, based on data from 702 individuals
The clinical prediction rule (CPR) described in 2019 in JAMA Pediatrics was developed by the Febrile Infant Working Group of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) to identify febrile infants at low risk for serious bacterial infections in order to reduce unnecessary procedures, antibiotics use, and hospitalization, according to April Clawson, MD, of Arkansas Children’s Hospital, Little Rock, and colleagues.
In a poster presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, the researchers conducted an external validation of the rule via a retrospective, observational study of febrile infants aged 60 days and younger who presented to an urban pediatric ED between October 2014 and June 2019. The study population included 702 infants with an average age of 36 days. Approximately 45% were female, and 60% were White. Fever was defined as 38° C or greater. Exclusion criteria were prematurity, receipt of antibiotics in the past 48 hours, presence of an indwelling medical device, and evidence of focal infection (not including otitis media); those who were critically ill at presentation or had a previous medical condition were excluded as well, the researchers said. A serious bacterial infection (SBI) was defined as a urinary tract infection (UTI), bacteremia, or bacterial meningitis.
Based on the CPR, a patient is considered low risk for an SBI if all the following criteria are met: normal urinalysis (defined as absence of leukocyte esterase, nitrite, and 5 or less white blood cells per high power field); an absolute neutrophil count of 4,090/mL or less; and procalcitonin of 1.71 ng/mL or less.
Overall, 62 infants (8.8%) were diagnosed with an SBI, similar to the 9.3% seen in the parent study of the CPR, Dr. Clawson said.
Of these, 42 had a UTI only (6%), 10 had bacteremia only (1.4%), and 1 had meningitis only (0.1%). Another five infants had UTI with bacteremia (0.7%), and four had bacteremia and meningitis (0.6%).
According to the CPR, 432 infants met criteria for low risk and 270 were considered high risk. A total of five infants who were classified as low risk had SBIs, including two with UTIs, two with bacteremia, and one with meningitis.
“The CPR derived and validated by Kupperman et al. had a decreased sensitivity for the patients in our study and missed some SBIs,” Dr. Clawson noted. “However, it had a strong negative predictive value, so it may still be a useful CPR.”
The sensitivity for the CPR in the parent study and the current study was 97.7 and 91.9, respectively; specificity was 60 and 66.7, respectively. The negative predictive values for the parent and current studies were 99.6 and 98.8, respectively, and the positive predictive values were 20.7 and 21.1.
The results support the potential of the CPR, but more external validation is needed, they said.
PECARN rule keeps it simple
“It has always been a challenge to identify infants with fever with serious bacterial infections when they are well-appearing,” Yashas Nathani, MD, of Oklahoma University, Oklahoma City, said in an interview. “The clinical prediction rule offers a simple, step-by-step approach for pediatricians and emergency medicine physicians to stratify infants in high or low risk categories for SBIs. However, as with everything, validation of protocols, guidelines and decision-making algorithms is extremely important, especially as more clinicians start to employ this CPR to their daily practice. This study objectively puts the CPR to the test and offers an independent external validation.
“Although this study had a lower sensitivity in identifying infants with SBI using the clinical prediction rule as compared to the original study, the robust validation of negative predictive value is extremely important and not surprising,” said Dr. Nathani. “The goal of this CPR is to identify infants with low-risk for SBI and the stated NPV helps clinicians in doing just that.”
Overall, “the clinical prediction rule is a fantastic resource for physicians to identify potentially sick infants with fever, especially the ones that appear well on initial evaluation,” said Dr. Nathani. However, “it is important to acknowledge that this is merely a guideline, and not an absolute rule. Clinicians also must remain cautious, as this rule does not incorporate the presence of viral pathogens as a factor.
“It is important to continue the scientific quest to refine our approach in identifying infants with serious bacterial infections when fever is the only presentation,” Dr. Nathani noted. “Additional research is needed to continue fine-tuning this CPR and the thresholds for procalcitonin and absolute neutrophil counts to improve the sensitivity and specificity.” Research also is needed to explore whether this CPR can be extended to incorporate viral testing, “as a large number of infants with fever have viral pathogens as the primary etiology,” he concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Nathani had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM PAS 2021
As new cases fall, U.S. passes 4 million children with COVID-19
Even as the number of new COVID-19 cases continues to drop, the United States reached the 4-million mark for infected children, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
. That weekly total, the lowest since June of 2020, comes from 49 states (excluding N.Y.), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
Children represent 14.1% of all COVID-19 cases since the beginning of the pandemic, while the corresponding figure for the week ending June 10 was 19.0%. That weekly proportion of cases among children had been rising pretty steadily through the winter and early spring, but the situation has become much more volatile over the last month, the AAP/CHA data show.
Use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in children aged 16-17 years, of course, didn’t begin until April, and the vaccine wasn’t authorized for children aged 12-15 years until mid-May. The Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines have not received such authorization yet, but Moderna is in the process of seeking an emergency-use recommendation from the Food and Drug Administration.
In the younger group of children who are currently eligible, completion of the vaccine regimen took a big jump in the week ending June 14, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The cumulative share of those aged 12-15 years who had received a second dose jumped from 4.1% on June 7 to 11.4% on June 14, with comparable numbers for 16- and 17-year-olds coming in at 26.4% and 29.1%.
Activity over just the last 14 days, however, shows a slight decrease in children aged 12-15 getting a first dose: For just the 2 weeks ending June 7, 17.9% of all children in the age group initiated a first dose, but for the 14 days ending June 14, only 17.1% of the age group did so, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker site.
For children aged 16-17 years – of whom less than 30% have reached full vaccination – activity seems to have stagnated: 4.8% of all 16- to 17-year-olds initiated a first vaccination during the 14 days ending June 7, compared with 4.7% who did so during the 14 days ending June 14, the CDC reported.
Older age groups with higher completion rates are still producing greater vaccine initiation. As of June 14, those aged 25-39 years had a completion rate of 41.9% and 24.0% of the age group had received a first dose in the previous 2 weeks, while 61.4% of those aged 50-64 were fully vaccinated, and 18.0% had gotten their first dose, the CDC data indicate.
Even as the number of new COVID-19 cases continues to drop, the United States reached the 4-million mark for infected children, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
. That weekly total, the lowest since June of 2020, comes from 49 states (excluding N.Y.), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
Children represent 14.1% of all COVID-19 cases since the beginning of the pandemic, while the corresponding figure for the week ending June 10 was 19.0%. That weekly proportion of cases among children had been rising pretty steadily through the winter and early spring, but the situation has become much more volatile over the last month, the AAP/CHA data show.
Use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in children aged 16-17 years, of course, didn’t begin until April, and the vaccine wasn’t authorized for children aged 12-15 years until mid-May. The Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines have not received such authorization yet, but Moderna is in the process of seeking an emergency-use recommendation from the Food and Drug Administration.
In the younger group of children who are currently eligible, completion of the vaccine regimen took a big jump in the week ending June 14, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The cumulative share of those aged 12-15 years who had received a second dose jumped from 4.1% on June 7 to 11.4% on June 14, with comparable numbers for 16- and 17-year-olds coming in at 26.4% and 29.1%.
Activity over just the last 14 days, however, shows a slight decrease in children aged 12-15 getting a first dose: For just the 2 weeks ending June 7, 17.9% of all children in the age group initiated a first dose, but for the 14 days ending June 14, only 17.1% of the age group did so, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker site.
For children aged 16-17 years – of whom less than 30% have reached full vaccination – activity seems to have stagnated: 4.8% of all 16- to 17-year-olds initiated a first vaccination during the 14 days ending June 7, compared with 4.7% who did so during the 14 days ending June 14, the CDC reported.
Older age groups with higher completion rates are still producing greater vaccine initiation. As of June 14, those aged 25-39 years had a completion rate of 41.9% and 24.0% of the age group had received a first dose in the previous 2 weeks, while 61.4% of those aged 50-64 were fully vaccinated, and 18.0% had gotten their first dose, the CDC data indicate.
Even as the number of new COVID-19 cases continues to drop, the United States reached the 4-million mark for infected children, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
. That weekly total, the lowest since June of 2020, comes from 49 states (excluding N.Y.), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
Children represent 14.1% of all COVID-19 cases since the beginning of the pandemic, while the corresponding figure for the week ending June 10 was 19.0%. That weekly proportion of cases among children had been rising pretty steadily through the winter and early spring, but the situation has become much more volatile over the last month, the AAP/CHA data show.
Use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in children aged 16-17 years, of course, didn’t begin until April, and the vaccine wasn’t authorized for children aged 12-15 years until mid-May. The Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines have not received such authorization yet, but Moderna is in the process of seeking an emergency-use recommendation from the Food and Drug Administration.
In the younger group of children who are currently eligible, completion of the vaccine regimen took a big jump in the week ending June 14, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The cumulative share of those aged 12-15 years who had received a second dose jumped from 4.1% on June 7 to 11.4% on June 14, with comparable numbers for 16- and 17-year-olds coming in at 26.4% and 29.1%.
Activity over just the last 14 days, however, shows a slight decrease in children aged 12-15 getting a first dose: For just the 2 weeks ending June 7, 17.9% of all children in the age group initiated a first dose, but for the 14 days ending June 14, only 17.1% of the age group did so, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker site.
For children aged 16-17 years – of whom less than 30% have reached full vaccination – activity seems to have stagnated: 4.8% of all 16- to 17-year-olds initiated a first vaccination during the 14 days ending June 7, compared with 4.7% who did so during the 14 days ending June 14, the CDC reported.
Older age groups with higher completion rates are still producing greater vaccine initiation. As of June 14, those aged 25-39 years had a completion rate of 41.9% and 24.0% of the age group had received a first dose in the previous 2 weeks, while 61.4% of those aged 50-64 were fully vaccinated, and 18.0% had gotten their first dose, the CDC data indicate.
Minnesota named best place to practice in 2021
For physicians who are just starting out or thinking about moving, the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” could be the land of opportunity, according to a recent Medscape analysis.
In a ranking of the 50 states, Minnesota “claimed top marks for livability, low incidence of adverse actions against doctors, and the performance of its health system,” Shelly Reese wrote in Medscape’s “Best & Worst Places to Practice 2021.”
Minnesota is below average where it’s good to be below average – share of physicians reporting burnout and/or depression – but above average in the share of physicians who say they’re “very happy” outside of work, Medscape said in the annual report.
and adverse actions and a high level of livability. Third place went to Washington (called the most livable state in the country by U.S. News and World Report), fourth to Colorado (physicians happy at and outside of work, high retention rate for residents), and fifth to Utah (low crime rate, high quality of life), Medscape said.
At the bottom of the list for 2021 is West Virginia, where physicians “may confront a bevy of challenges” in the form of low livability, a high rate of adverse actions, and relatively high malpractice payouts, Ms. Reese noted in the report.
State number 49 is Louisiana, where livability is low, malpractice payouts are high, and more than half of physicians say that they’re burned out and/or depressed. New Mexico is 48th (very high rate of adverse actions, poor resident retention), Nevada is 47th (low marks for avoidable hospital use and disparity in care), and Rhode Island is 46th (high malpractice payouts, low physician compensation), Medscape said.
Continuing with the group-of-five theme, America’s three most populous states finished in the top half of the ranking – California 16th, Texas 11th, and Florida 21st – but New York and Pennsylvania, numbers four and five by population size, did not.
The rankings are based on states’ performance in 10 different measures, three of which were sourced from Medscape surveys – happiness at work, happiness outside of work, and burnout/depression – and seven from other organizations: adverse actions against physicians, malpractice payouts, compensation (adjusted for cost of living), overall health, health system performance, overall livability, resident retention.
For physicians who are just starting out or thinking about moving, the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” could be the land of opportunity, according to a recent Medscape analysis.
In a ranking of the 50 states, Minnesota “claimed top marks for livability, low incidence of adverse actions against doctors, and the performance of its health system,” Shelly Reese wrote in Medscape’s “Best & Worst Places to Practice 2021.”
Minnesota is below average where it’s good to be below average – share of physicians reporting burnout and/or depression – but above average in the share of physicians who say they’re “very happy” outside of work, Medscape said in the annual report.
and adverse actions and a high level of livability. Third place went to Washington (called the most livable state in the country by U.S. News and World Report), fourth to Colorado (physicians happy at and outside of work, high retention rate for residents), and fifth to Utah (low crime rate, high quality of life), Medscape said.
At the bottom of the list for 2021 is West Virginia, where physicians “may confront a bevy of challenges” in the form of low livability, a high rate of adverse actions, and relatively high malpractice payouts, Ms. Reese noted in the report.
State number 49 is Louisiana, where livability is low, malpractice payouts are high, and more than half of physicians say that they’re burned out and/or depressed. New Mexico is 48th (very high rate of adverse actions, poor resident retention), Nevada is 47th (low marks for avoidable hospital use and disparity in care), and Rhode Island is 46th (high malpractice payouts, low physician compensation), Medscape said.
Continuing with the group-of-five theme, America’s three most populous states finished in the top half of the ranking – California 16th, Texas 11th, and Florida 21st – but New York and Pennsylvania, numbers four and five by population size, did not.
The rankings are based on states’ performance in 10 different measures, three of which were sourced from Medscape surveys – happiness at work, happiness outside of work, and burnout/depression – and seven from other organizations: adverse actions against physicians, malpractice payouts, compensation (adjusted for cost of living), overall health, health system performance, overall livability, resident retention.
For physicians who are just starting out or thinking about moving, the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” could be the land of opportunity, according to a recent Medscape analysis.
In a ranking of the 50 states, Minnesota “claimed top marks for livability, low incidence of adverse actions against doctors, and the performance of its health system,” Shelly Reese wrote in Medscape’s “Best & Worst Places to Practice 2021.”
Minnesota is below average where it’s good to be below average – share of physicians reporting burnout and/or depression – but above average in the share of physicians who say they’re “very happy” outside of work, Medscape said in the annual report.
and adverse actions and a high level of livability. Third place went to Washington (called the most livable state in the country by U.S. News and World Report), fourth to Colorado (physicians happy at and outside of work, high retention rate for residents), and fifth to Utah (low crime rate, high quality of life), Medscape said.
At the bottom of the list for 2021 is West Virginia, where physicians “may confront a bevy of challenges” in the form of low livability, a high rate of adverse actions, and relatively high malpractice payouts, Ms. Reese noted in the report.
State number 49 is Louisiana, where livability is low, malpractice payouts are high, and more than half of physicians say that they’re burned out and/or depressed. New Mexico is 48th (very high rate of adverse actions, poor resident retention), Nevada is 47th (low marks for avoidable hospital use and disparity in care), and Rhode Island is 46th (high malpractice payouts, low physician compensation), Medscape said.
Continuing with the group-of-five theme, America’s three most populous states finished in the top half of the ranking – California 16th, Texas 11th, and Florida 21st – but New York and Pennsylvania, numbers four and five by population size, did not.
The rankings are based on states’ performance in 10 different measures, three of which were sourced from Medscape surveys – happiness at work, happiness outside of work, and burnout/depression – and seven from other organizations: adverse actions against physicians, malpractice payouts, compensation (adjusted for cost of living), overall health, health system performance, overall livability, resident retention.
Third COVID-19 vaccine dose helped some transplant recipients
All of those with low titers before the third dose had high titers after receiving the additional shot, but only about 33% of those with negative initial responses had detectable antibodies after the third dose, according to the paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Researchers at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who keep a COVID-19 vaccine registry, perform antibody tests on all registry subjects and inform them of their results. Registry participants were asked to inform the research team if they received a third dose, and, the research team tracked the immune responses of those who did.
The participants in this case series had low antibody levels and received a third dose of the vaccine on their own between March 20 and May 10 of 2021.
Third dose results
In this cases series – thought to be the first to look at third vaccine shots in this type of patient group – all six of those who had low antibody titers before the third dose had high-positive titers after the third dose.
Of the 24 individuals who had negative antibody titers before the third dose, just 6 had high titers after the third dose.
Two of the participants had low-positive titers, and 16 were negative.
“Several of those boosted very nicely into ranges seen, using these assays, in healthy persons,” said William Werbel, MD, a fellow in infectious disease at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who helped lead the study. Those with negative levels, even if they responded, tended to have lower titers, he said.
“The benefits at least from an antibody perspective were not the same for everybody and so this is obviously something that needs to be considered when thinking about selecting patients” for a COVID-19 prevention strategy, he said.
Reactions to the vaccine were low to moderate, such as some arm pain and fatigue.
“Showing that something is safe in that special, vulnerable population is important,” Dr. Werbel said. “We’re all wanting to make sure that we’re doing no harm.”
Dr. Werbel noted that there was no pattern in the small series based on the organ transplanted or in the vaccines used. As their third shot, 15 of the patients received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine; 9 received Moderna; and 6 received Pfizer-BioNTech.
Welcome news, but larger studies needed
“To think that a third dose could confer protection for a significant number of people is of course extremely welcome news,” said Christian Larsen, MD, DPhil, professor of surgery in the transplantation division at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the easiest conceivable next intervention.”
He added, “We just want studies to confirm that – larger studies.”
Dr. Werbel stressed the importance of looking at third doses in these patients in a more controlled fashion in a randomized trial, to more carefully monitor safety and how patients fare when starting with one type of vaccine and switching to another, for example.
Richard Wender, MD, chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are a reminder that there is still a lot that is unknown about COVID-19 and vaccination.
“We still don’t know who will or will not benefit from a third dose,” he said. “And our knowledge is evolving. For example, a recent study suggested that people with previous infection and who are vaccinated may have better and longer protection than people with vaccination alone. We’re still learning.”
He added that specialists, not primary care clinicians, should be relied upon to respond to this emerging vaccination data. Primary care doctors are very busy in other ways – such as in getting children caught up on vaccinations and helping adults return to managing their chronic diseases, Dr. Wender noted.
“Their focus needs to be on helping to overcome hesitancy, mistrust, lack of information, or antivaccination sentiment to help more people feel comfortable being vaccinated – this is a lot of work and needs constant focus. In short, primary care clinicians need to focus chiefly on the unvaccinated,” he said.
“Monitoring immunization recommendations for unique at-risk populations should be the chief responsibility of teams providing subspecialty care, [such as for] transplant patients, people with chronic kidney disease, cancer patients, and people with other chronic illnesses. This will allow primary care clinicians to tackle their many complex jobs.”
Possible solutions for those with low antibody responses
Dr. Larsen said that those with ongoing low antibody responses might still have other immune responses, such as a T-cell response. Such patients also could consider changing their vaccine type, he said.
“At the more significant intervention level, there may be circumstances where one could change the immunosuppressive drugs in a controlled way that might allow a better response,” suggested Dr. Larsen. “That’s obviously going to be something that requires a lot more thought and careful study.”
Dr. Werbel said that other options might need to be considered for those having no response following a third dose. One possibility is trying a vaccine with an adjuvant, such as the Novavax version, which might be more widely available soon.
“If you’re given a third dose of a very immunogenic vaccine – something that should work – and you just have no antibody development, it seems relatively unlikely that doing the same thing again is going to help you from that perspective, and for all we know might expose you to more risk,” Dr. Werbel noted.
Participant details
None of the 30 patients were thought to have ever had COVID-19. On average, patients had received their transplant 4.5 years before their original vaccination. In 25 patients, maintenance immunosuppression included tacrolimus or cyclosporine along with mycophenolate. Corticosteroids were also used for 24 patients, sirolimus was used for one patient, and belatacept was used for another patient.
Fifty-seven percent of patients had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine originally, and 43% the Moderna vaccine. Most of the patients were kidney recipients, with two heart, three liver, one lung, one pancreas and one kidney-pancreas.
Dr. Werbel, Dr. Wender, and Dr. Larsen reported no relevant disclosures.
All of those with low titers before the third dose had high titers after receiving the additional shot, but only about 33% of those with negative initial responses had detectable antibodies after the third dose, according to the paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Researchers at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who keep a COVID-19 vaccine registry, perform antibody tests on all registry subjects and inform them of their results. Registry participants were asked to inform the research team if they received a third dose, and, the research team tracked the immune responses of those who did.
The participants in this case series had low antibody levels and received a third dose of the vaccine on their own between March 20 and May 10 of 2021.
Third dose results
In this cases series – thought to be the first to look at third vaccine shots in this type of patient group – all six of those who had low antibody titers before the third dose had high-positive titers after the third dose.
Of the 24 individuals who had negative antibody titers before the third dose, just 6 had high titers after the third dose.
Two of the participants had low-positive titers, and 16 were negative.
“Several of those boosted very nicely into ranges seen, using these assays, in healthy persons,” said William Werbel, MD, a fellow in infectious disease at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who helped lead the study. Those with negative levels, even if they responded, tended to have lower titers, he said.
“The benefits at least from an antibody perspective were not the same for everybody and so this is obviously something that needs to be considered when thinking about selecting patients” for a COVID-19 prevention strategy, he said.
Reactions to the vaccine were low to moderate, such as some arm pain and fatigue.
“Showing that something is safe in that special, vulnerable population is important,” Dr. Werbel said. “We’re all wanting to make sure that we’re doing no harm.”
Dr. Werbel noted that there was no pattern in the small series based on the organ transplanted or in the vaccines used. As their third shot, 15 of the patients received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine; 9 received Moderna; and 6 received Pfizer-BioNTech.
Welcome news, but larger studies needed
“To think that a third dose could confer protection for a significant number of people is of course extremely welcome news,” said Christian Larsen, MD, DPhil, professor of surgery in the transplantation division at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the easiest conceivable next intervention.”
He added, “We just want studies to confirm that – larger studies.”
Dr. Werbel stressed the importance of looking at third doses in these patients in a more controlled fashion in a randomized trial, to more carefully monitor safety and how patients fare when starting with one type of vaccine and switching to another, for example.
Richard Wender, MD, chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are a reminder that there is still a lot that is unknown about COVID-19 and vaccination.
“We still don’t know who will or will not benefit from a third dose,” he said. “And our knowledge is evolving. For example, a recent study suggested that people with previous infection and who are vaccinated may have better and longer protection than people with vaccination alone. We’re still learning.”
He added that specialists, not primary care clinicians, should be relied upon to respond to this emerging vaccination data. Primary care doctors are very busy in other ways – such as in getting children caught up on vaccinations and helping adults return to managing their chronic diseases, Dr. Wender noted.
“Their focus needs to be on helping to overcome hesitancy, mistrust, lack of information, or antivaccination sentiment to help more people feel comfortable being vaccinated – this is a lot of work and needs constant focus. In short, primary care clinicians need to focus chiefly on the unvaccinated,” he said.
“Monitoring immunization recommendations for unique at-risk populations should be the chief responsibility of teams providing subspecialty care, [such as for] transplant patients, people with chronic kidney disease, cancer patients, and people with other chronic illnesses. This will allow primary care clinicians to tackle their many complex jobs.”
Possible solutions for those with low antibody responses
Dr. Larsen said that those with ongoing low antibody responses might still have other immune responses, such as a T-cell response. Such patients also could consider changing their vaccine type, he said.
“At the more significant intervention level, there may be circumstances where one could change the immunosuppressive drugs in a controlled way that might allow a better response,” suggested Dr. Larsen. “That’s obviously going to be something that requires a lot more thought and careful study.”
Dr. Werbel said that other options might need to be considered for those having no response following a third dose. One possibility is trying a vaccine with an adjuvant, such as the Novavax version, which might be more widely available soon.
“If you’re given a third dose of a very immunogenic vaccine – something that should work – and you just have no antibody development, it seems relatively unlikely that doing the same thing again is going to help you from that perspective, and for all we know might expose you to more risk,” Dr. Werbel noted.
Participant details
None of the 30 patients were thought to have ever had COVID-19. On average, patients had received their transplant 4.5 years before their original vaccination. In 25 patients, maintenance immunosuppression included tacrolimus or cyclosporine along with mycophenolate. Corticosteroids were also used for 24 patients, sirolimus was used for one patient, and belatacept was used for another patient.
Fifty-seven percent of patients had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine originally, and 43% the Moderna vaccine. Most of the patients were kidney recipients, with two heart, three liver, one lung, one pancreas and one kidney-pancreas.
Dr. Werbel, Dr. Wender, and Dr. Larsen reported no relevant disclosures.
All of those with low titers before the third dose had high titers after receiving the additional shot, but only about 33% of those with negative initial responses had detectable antibodies after the third dose, according to the paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Researchers at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who keep a COVID-19 vaccine registry, perform antibody tests on all registry subjects and inform them of their results. Registry participants were asked to inform the research team if they received a third dose, and, the research team tracked the immune responses of those who did.
The participants in this case series had low antibody levels and received a third dose of the vaccine on their own between March 20 and May 10 of 2021.
Third dose results
In this cases series – thought to be the first to look at third vaccine shots in this type of patient group – all six of those who had low antibody titers before the third dose had high-positive titers after the third dose.
Of the 24 individuals who had negative antibody titers before the third dose, just 6 had high titers after the third dose.
Two of the participants had low-positive titers, and 16 were negative.
“Several of those boosted very nicely into ranges seen, using these assays, in healthy persons,” said William Werbel, MD, a fellow in infectious disease at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who helped lead the study. Those with negative levels, even if they responded, tended to have lower titers, he said.
“The benefits at least from an antibody perspective were not the same for everybody and so this is obviously something that needs to be considered when thinking about selecting patients” for a COVID-19 prevention strategy, he said.
Reactions to the vaccine were low to moderate, such as some arm pain and fatigue.
“Showing that something is safe in that special, vulnerable population is important,” Dr. Werbel said. “We’re all wanting to make sure that we’re doing no harm.”
Dr. Werbel noted that there was no pattern in the small series based on the organ transplanted or in the vaccines used. As their third shot, 15 of the patients received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine; 9 received Moderna; and 6 received Pfizer-BioNTech.
Welcome news, but larger studies needed
“To think that a third dose could confer protection for a significant number of people is of course extremely welcome news,” said Christian Larsen, MD, DPhil, professor of surgery in the transplantation division at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the easiest conceivable next intervention.”
He added, “We just want studies to confirm that – larger studies.”
Dr. Werbel stressed the importance of looking at third doses in these patients in a more controlled fashion in a randomized trial, to more carefully monitor safety and how patients fare when starting with one type of vaccine and switching to another, for example.
Richard Wender, MD, chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are a reminder that there is still a lot that is unknown about COVID-19 and vaccination.
“We still don’t know who will or will not benefit from a third dose,” he said. “And our knowledge is evolving. For example, a recent study suggested that people with previous infection and who are vaccinated may have better and longer protection than people with vaccination alone. We’re still learning.”
He added that specialists, not primary care clinicians, should be relied upon to respond to this emerging vaccination data. Primary care doctors are very busy in other ways – such as in getting children caught up on vaccinations and helping adults return to managing their chronic diseases, Dr. Wender noted.
“Their focus needs to be on helping to overcome hesitancy, mistrust, lack of information, or antivaccination sentiment to help more people feel comfortable being vaccinated – this is a lot of work and needs constant focus. In short, primary care clinicians need to focus chiefly on the unvaccinated,” he said.
“Monitoring immunization recommendations for unique at-risk populations should be the chief responsibility of teams providing subspecialty care, [such as for] transplant patients, people with chronic kidney disease, cancer patients, and people with other chronic illnesses. This will allow primary care clinicians to tackle their many complex jobs.”
Possible solutions for those with low antibody responses
Dr. Larsen said that those with ongoing low antibody responses might still have other immune responses, such as a T-cell response. Such patients also could consider changing their vaccine type, he said.
“At the more significant intervention level, there may be circumstances where one could change the immunosuppressive drugs in a controlled way that might allow a better response,” suggested Dr. Larsen. “That’s obviously going to be something that requires a lot more thought and careful study.”
Dr. Werbel said that other options might need to be considered for those having no response following a third dose. One possibility is trying a vaccine with an adjuvant, such as the Novavax version, which might be more widely available soon.
“If you’re given a third dose of a very immunogenic vaccine – something that should work – and you just have no antibody development, it seems relatively unlikely that doing the same thing again is going to help you from that perspective, and for all we know might expose you to more risk,” Dr. Werbel noted.
Participant details
None of the 30 patients were thought to have ever had COVID-19. On average, patients had received their transplant 4.5 years before their original vaccination. In 25 patients, maintenance immunosuppression included tacrolimus or cyclosporine along with mycophenolate. Corticosteroids were also used for 24 patients, sirolimus was used for one patient, and belatacept was used for another patient.
Fifty-seven percent of patients had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine originally, and 43% the Moderna vaccine. Most of the patients were kidney recipients, with two heart, three liver, one lung, one pancreas and one kidney-pancreas.
Dr. Werbel, Dr. Wender, and Dr. Larsen reported no relevant disclosures.
The Cures Act: Is the “cure” worse than the disease?
There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.
Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.
Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.
When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
How the Cures Act is affecting patients
While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.
Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?
Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”
The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.
In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient
In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.
Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.
Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.
Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
Interpreting results
None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.
It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.
No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.
Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.
Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at fpnews@mdedge.com.
There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.
Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.
Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.
When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
How the Cures Act is affecting patients
While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.
Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?
Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”
The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.
In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient
In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.
Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.
Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.
Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
Interpreting results
None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.
It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.
No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.
Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.
Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at fpnews@mdedge.com.
There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.
Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.
Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.
When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
How the Cures Act is affecting patients
While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.
Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?
Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”
The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.
In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient
In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.
Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.
Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.
Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
Interpreting results
None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.
It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.
No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.
Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.
Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at fpnews@mdedge.com.