WASHINGTON – Children who have had a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) have an increased risk of benign and atypical nevi, Dr. Johanna Sheu reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

These patients need to have routine skin exams and be educated about sun protection needs, she said. Based on her study, these needs are not routinely met.

At least 1 year after undergoing HSCT at Boston Children’s Hospital, 85 posttransplant patients had significantly more nevi and more atypical nevi than did 85 healthy controls who were matched by age, gender, and Fitzpatrick skin type. In addition, 41% of the transplant recipients had at least one actinic keratosis, a basal or squamous cell carcinoma, or a solar lentigo; 11% had at least one nevus spilus.

Moreover, “sun protection … and dermatology follow-up was poor” among the transplant recipients, said Dr. Sheu, of MassGeneral Hospital for Children, Boston. About 40% of the transplant recipients reported having a sunburn since their transplant, only 15% reported daily use of sunscreen, and 53% said they did not recall being told that sunburn could trigger graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

About one-third of the patients had never seen a dermatologist; of those who had, two-thirds had only seen the dermatologist once, Dr. Sheu reported.

Late skin effects of HSCT are not as well described in children as they are in adults, she said. In adults, late skin effects include vitiligo, psoriasis, nonmelanoma skin cancers, and an increased nevi count.

The children in the study had undergone an HSCT between 1998 and 2013, at a median age of about 7 years (range was 1 month to 19 years). At the time of their skin exams, their mean age was 14 years, and they had been followed for a median of almost 4 years. Nevi were counted on the forearms, backs, legs, palms, and soles.

The median nevi count was 44 nevi, significantly more than the level seen in control subjects. Transplant recipients also had significantly more nevi in sun-exposed areas of the body, as well as on the palms and soles. Transplant recipients were more likely to have atypical nevi and to have nevi greater than 5 mm in diameter.

In addition to fair skin, factors associated with an increase in the overall nevi count included being older than age 10 at the time of the transplant and having total body irradiation, pretransplant chemotherapy, and myeloablative conditioning. Having had a sunburn since the transplant, reported by 40%, was also a risk factor.

Chronic GVHD and chronic GVHD of the skin were associated with the presence of atypical nevi; acute GVHD, the duration of immune suppression, and the use of topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors were not associated with increased risk of atypical nevi.

She and her coinvestigators are currently analyzing the pathogenesis of these late effects in this population, and autoimmune skin conditions – vitiligo and alopecia – in 25% of the transplant recipients in the study.

In 2013, 1,100 children under aged 16 years in the United States underwent a bone marrow transplant, she noted.

Dr. Sheu had no disclosures.

emechcatie@frontlinemedcom.com

WASHINGTON – Children who have had a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) have an increased risk of benign and atypical nevi, Dr. Johanna Sheu reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

These patients need to have routine skin exams and be educated about sun protection needs, she said. Based on her study, these needs are not routinely met.

At least 1 year after undergoing HSCT at Boston Children’s Hospital, 85 posttransplant patients had significantly more nevi and more atypical nevi than did 85 healthy controls who were matched by age, gender, and Fitzpatrick skin type. In addition, 41% of the transplant recipients had at least one actinic keratosis, a basal or squamous cell carcinoma, or a solar lentigo; 11% had at least one nevus spilus.

Moreover, “sun protection … and dermatology follow-up was poor” among the transplant recipients, said Dr. Sheu, of MassGeneral Hospital for Children, Boston. About 40% of the transplant recipients reported having a sunburn since their transplant, only 15% reported daily use of sunscreen, and 53% said they did not recall being told that sunburn could trigger graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

About one-third of the patients had never seen a dermatologist; of those who had, two-thirds had only seen the dermatologist once, Dr. Sheu reported.

Late skin effects of HSCT are not as well described in children as they are in adults, she said. In adults, late skin effects include vitiligo, psoriasis, nonmelanoma skin cancers, and an increased nevi count.

The children in the study had undergone an HSCT between 1998 and 2013, at a median age of about 7 years (range was 1 month to 19 years). At the time of their skin exams, their mean age was 14 years, and they had been followed for a median of almost 4 years. Nevi were counted on the forearms, backs, legs, palms, and soles.

The median nevi count was 44 nevi, significantly more than the level seen in control subjects. Transplant recipients also had significantly more nevi in sun-exposed areas of the body, as well as on the palms and soles. Transplant recipients were more likely to have atypical nevi and to have nevi greater than 5 mm in diameter.

In addition to fair skin, factors associated with an increase in the overall nevi count included being older than age 10 at the time of the transplant and having total body irradiation, pretransplant chemotherapy, and myeloablative conditioning. Having had a sunburn since the transplant, reported by 40%, was also a risk factor.

Chronic GVHD and chronic GVHD of the skin were associated with the presence of atypical nevi; acute GVHD, the duration of immune suppression, and the use of topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors were not associated with increased risk of atypical nevi.

She and her coinvestigators are currently analyzing the pathogenesis of these late effects in this population, and autoimmune skin conditions – vitiligo and alopecia – in 25% of the transplant recipients in the study.

In 2013, 1,100 children under aged 16 years in the United States underwent a bone marrow transplant, she noted.

Dr. Sheu had no disclosures.

emechcatie@frontlinemedcom.com

WASHINGTON – Children who have had a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) have an increased risk of benign and atypical nevi, Dr. Johanna Sheu reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

These patients need to have routine skin exams and be educated about sun protection needs, she said. Based on her study, these needs are not routinely met.

At least 1 year after undergoing HSCT at Boston Children’s Hospital, 85 posttransplant patients had significantly more nevi and more atypical nevi than did 85 healthy controls who were matched by age, gender, and Fitzpatrick skin type. In addition, 41% of the transplant recipients had at least one actinic keratosis, a basal or squamous cell carcinoma, or a solar lentigo; 11% had at least one nevus spilus.

Moreover, “sun protection … and dermatology follow-up was poor” among the transplant recipients, said Dr. Sheu, of MassGeneral Hospital for Children, Boston. About 40% of the transplant recipients reported having a sunburn since their transplant, only 15% reported daily use of sunscreen, and 53% said they did not recall being told that sunburn could trigger graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

About one-third of the patients had never seen a dermatologist; of those who had, two-thirds had only seen the dermatologist once, Dr. Sheu reported.

Late skin effects of HSCT are not as well described in children as they are in adults, she said. In adults, late skin effects include vitiligo, psoriasis, nonmelanoma skin cancers, and an increased nevi count.

The children in the study had undergone an HSCT between 1998 and 2013, at a median age of about 7 years (range was 1 month to 19 years). At the time of their skin exams, their mean age was 14 years, and they had been followed for a median of almost 4 years. Nevi were counted on the forearms, backs, legs, palms, and soles.

The median nevi count was 44 nevi, significantly more than the level seen in control subjects. Transplant recipients also had significantly more nevi in sun-exposed areas of the body, as well as on the palms and soles. Transplant recipients were more likely to have atypical nevi and to have nevi greater than 5 mm in diameter.

In addition to fair skin, factors associated with an increase in the overall nevi count included being older than age 10 at the time of the transplant and having total body irradiation, pretransplant chemotherapy, and myeloablative conditioning. Having had a sunburn since the transplant, reported by 40%, was also a risk factor.

Chronic GVHD and chronic GVHD of the skin were associated with the presence of atypical nevi; acute GVHD, the duration of immune suppression, and the use of topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors were not associated with increased risk of atypical nevi.

She and her coinvestigators are currently analyzing the pathogenesis of these late effects in this population, and autoimmune skin conditions – vitiligo and alopecia – in 25% of the transplant recipients in the study.

In 2013, 1,100 children under aged 16 years in the United States underwent a bone marrow transplant, she noted.

Dr. Sheu had no disclosures.

emechcatie@frontlinemedcom.com

NEW ORLEANS – Repeated intrathecal administration of autologous mesenchymal bone marrow-derived stromal stem cells for the treatment of multiple sclerosis was safe and induced accelerated beneficial effects in some patients in an uncontrolled, prospective study.

Of 28 patients with either secondary progressive or relapsing-progressive MS who were experiencing severe clinical deterioration and failure to respond to first- and second-line immunomodulatory treatments, 25 experienced either stable or improved Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores following autologous mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) injections. The mean score decreased from 6.76 at study entry to 6.57 at a mean follow-up of 3.6 years, Dr. Panayiota Petrou of Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel, and her colleagues reported in a poster at a meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

©Zerbor/thinkstockphotos.com

In addition, 17 patients experienced improvements in at least one functional system of the EDSS, including 14 who experienced improved motor function, 5 who experienced improved speech/bulbar functions, 4 who experienced improved urinary functions, and 6 who experienced improved cerebellar function. Eight patients remained stable during the entire follow-up period.

In a prior pilot trial, intrathecal administration of MSCs was shown to be safe and provided “some indications of potentially clinically meaningful beneficial effects on the progression of the disease,” the investigators said.

The current study provides further support for those findings. It included patients who experienced severe clinical deterioration (at least 0.5-1 points in the EDSS) during the year prior to study enrollment, or who had at least one major relapse without sufficient recovery following steroid treatment. Study subjects had a mean age of 56 years and mean disease duration of 15.4 years. They received at least 2 courses and up to 10 injections with 1 million cells/kg; most received 2 (8 patients) or 3 (9 patients) injections, and they were followed for up to 6 years.

No serious side effects were observed during long-term follow-up after repeated intrathecal injections. Eight patients experienced headaches and/or fever in the hours and days after injection, and two experienced symptoms of encephalopathy, which resolved within a few hours. Also, one patient experienced back pain and one had neck rigidity, but no long-term side effects were reported, the investigators said.

Immunological follow-up showed a transient up-regulation of regulatory T cells and down-regulation of the proliferative ability of lymphocytes and of several immune activation surface markers for up to 3 months, they noted.

The investigators reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

NEW ORLEANS – Repeated intrathecal administration of autologous mesenchymal bone marrow-derived stromal stem cells for the treatment of multiple sclerosis was safe and induced accelerated beneficial effects in some patients in an uncontrolled, prospective study.

Of 28 patients with either secondary progressive or relapsing-progressive MS who were experiencing severe clinical deterioration and failure to respond to first- and second-line immunomodulatory treatments, 25 experienced either stable or improved Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores following autologous mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) injections. The mean score decreased from 6.76 at study entry to 6.57 at a mean follow-up of 3.6 years, Dr. Panayiota Petrou of Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel, and her colleagues reported in a poster at a meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

©Zerbor/thinkstockphotos.com

In addition, 17 patients experienced improvements in at least one functional system of the EDSS, including 14 who experienced improved motor function, 5 who experienced improved speech/bulbar functions, 4 who experienced improved urinary functions, and 6 who experienced improved cerebellar function. Eight patients remained stable during the entire follow-up period.

In a prior pilot trial, intrathecal administration of MSCs was shown to be safe and provided “some indications of potentially clinically meaningful beneficial effects on the progression of the disease,” the investigators said.

The current study provides further support for those findings. It included patients who experienced severe clinical deterioration (at least 0.5-1 points in the EDSS) during the year prior to study enrollment, or who had at least one major relapse without sufficient recovery following steroid treatment. Study subjects had a mean age of 56 years and mean disease duration of 15.4 years. They received at least 2 courses and up to 10 injections with 1 million cells/kg; most received 2 (8 patients) or 3 (9 patients) injections, and they were followed for up to 6 years.

No serious side effects were observed during long-term follow-up after repeated intrathecal injections. Eight patients experienced headaches and/or fever in the hours and days after injection, and two experienced symptoms of encephalopathy, which resolved within a few hours. Also, one patient experienced back pain and one had neck rigidity, but no long-term side effects were reported, the investigators said.

Immunological follow-up showed a transient up-regulation of regulatory T cells and down-regulation of the proliferative ability of lymphocytes and of several immune activation surface markers for up to 3 months, they noted.

The investigators reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

NEW ORLEANS – Repeated intrathecal administration of autologous mesenchymal bone marrow-derived stromal stem cells for the treatment of multiple sclerosis was safe and induced accelerated beneficial effects in some patients in an uncontrolled, prospective study.

Of 28 patients with either secondary progressive or relapsing-progressive MS who were experiencing severe clinical deterioration and failure to respond to first- and second-line immunomodulatory treatments, 25 experienced either stable or improved Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores following autologous mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) injections. The mean score decreased from 6.76 at study entry to 6.57 at a mean follow-up of 3.6 years, Dr. Panayiota Petrou of Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel, and her colleagues reported in a poster at a meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

©Zerbor/thinkstockphotos.com

In addition, 17 patients experienced improvements in at least one functional system of the EDSS, including 14 who experienced improved motor function, 5 who experienced improved speech/bulbar functions, 4 who experienced improved urinary functions, and 6 who experienced improved cerebellar function. Eight patients remained stable during the entire follow-up period.

In a prior pilot trial, intrathecal administration of MSCs was shown to be safe and provided “some indications of potentially clinically meaningful beneficial effects on the progression of the disease,” the investigators said.

The current study provides further support for those findings. It included patients who experienced severe clinical deterioration (at least 0.5-1 points in the EDSS) during the year prior to study enrollment, or who had at least one major relapse without sufficient recovery following steroid treatment. Study subjects had a mean age of 56 years and mean disease duration of 15.4 years. They received at least 2 courses and up to 10 injections with 1 million cells/kg; most received 2 (8 patients) or 3 (9 patients) injections, and they were followed for up to 6 years.

No serious side effects were observed during long-term follow-up after repeated intrathecal injections. Eight patients experienced headaches and/or fever in the hours and days after injection, and two experienced symptoms of encephalopathy, which resolved within a few hours. Also, one patient experienced back pain and one had neck rigidity, but no long-term side effects were reported, the investigators said.

Immunological follow-up showed a transient up-regulation of regulatory T cells and down-regulation of the proliferative ability of lymphocytes and of several immune activation surface markers for up to 3 months, they noted.

The investigators reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

LOS ANGELES – A peanut allergy prevention strategy based upon regular consumption of peanut-containing foods from infancy to age 5 continued to provide protection even after peanut intake was halted for a full year from age 5 to 6, according to new results from an extension of the landmark LEAP trial, known as LEAP-On, presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

The impetus for LEAP-On was the investigators’ concern that a period of peanut avoidance might cause loss of the protective state. But that didn’t occur.

“I think there is no doubt that we have prevented peanut allergy so far in these high-risk children. Next, the LEAP-Ad Lib study will tell us whether we’ve prevented it by age 10,” said Dr. Gideon Lack of King’s College London, who headed LEAP-On.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

A second major randomized trial known as EAT (Enquiring About Tolerance) presented at the meeting provided further support for early dietary introduction of allergenic foods. EAT differed from LEAP (Learning Early About Peanut Allergy) and LEAP-On in that it ambitiously randomized infants to early introduction or avoidance of not one but six allergenic foods: peanut, cooked egg, cow’s milk, fish, sesame, and wheat. Also, while LEAP and LEAP-On involved roughly 600 infants known to be at very high risk for allergy, EAT was conducted in a general population of 1,303 infants who weren’t at increased risk, all of whom were exclusively breast-fed until the intervention beginning at age 3 months.

The presentation of the LEAP-On and EAT results at the AAAAI annual meeting was a major event marked by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by same-day release of new NIAID-sponsored draft recommendations for the diagnosis and management of food allergies.

In a press conference held at the AAAAI annual meeting to announce the start of a 45-day public comment period for the draft update of the 2010 guidelines, Dr. Daniel Rotrosen, director of NIAID’s division of allergy, immunology and transplantation, said the new guidelines were developed largely in response to the compelling LEAP findings. That trial demonstrated that sustained consumption of peanut starting in infancy resulted in an 81% lower rate of peanut allergy at age 5 years compared to a strategy of peanut avoidance (N Engl J Med. 2015;372:803-13).

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

The draft guidelines, now available on the NIAID website, represent a sharp departure from the former recommendation that physicians encourage exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life followed by cautious introduction of other foods. Whereas the former orthodoxy was that delayed introduction of allergenic foods protects against development of food allergy, the new evidence-based concept supported by the LEAP and EAT findings is that just the opposite is true: that is, introduction of such foods during the period of immunologic plasticity in infancy induces tolerance.

Thus, the draft guidelines recommend that infants at high risk for peanut allergy because they have severe eczema and/or egg allergy should have introduction of peanut-containing food at 4-6 months of age to reduce their risk of peanut allergy, preceded by evaluation using peanut-specific IgE or skin prick testing to make sure it’s safe. That age window coincides with well-child visits and vaccination schedules, Dr. Rotrosen noted.

These guidelines represent the consensus of 26 organizations that participated in their development. Among them are the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Dermatology, the American College of Gastroenterology, and AAAAI.

“I expect the new guidelines, when finalized, to be endorsed by the leadership of all the participating organizations,” Dr. Rotrosen said.

The new paradigm will require cultural change, said Dr. James R. Baker Jr., CEO and chief medical officer of Food Allergy Research and Education, a nonprofit organization that provided partial funding for LEAP and LEAP-On.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“I think for a long time we’ve vilified these foods. There’s nothing inherently wrong with their intake, and that’s a message we need to get across to parents and physicians so they can start thinking differently,” he said.

“The good news about these studies is that they show there’s no reason not to do this,” Dr. Baker added. “There’s no harm that comes from the early introduction.”

Dr. Lack, who led the EAT trial, noted that the study didn’t meet it’s primary endpoint of a significantly lower prevalence of food allergy to any of the six intervention foods at age 3 years in the intention-to-treat analysis. But adherence to the demanding EAT early-introduction protocol was a problem. Indeed, only 43% of participants adhered to the study protocol. In a per-protocol analysis restricted to the adherent group, however, early introduction was associated with a highly significant 67% reduction in the relative risk of food allergy at 3 years of age compared to controls. And for the two most prevalent food allergies – to peanut and egg – the relative risk reductions in the early-introduction group were 100% and 75%, respectively.

The EAT results suggest that an effective preventive dose of peanut in infants at least 3 months of age is roughly 2 g of peanut protein per week, equivalent to just under 2 tsp of peanut butter, according to Dr. Lack.

Simultaneously with presentation of the LEAP-On and EAT trials in Los Angeles, the studies were published online at NEJM.org (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1514210 for LEAP-ON and 10.1056/NEJMoa1514209 for EAT).

LEAP-On was supported primarily by NIAID. EAT was funded mainly by the UK Foods Standards Agency and the Medical Research Council. Dr. Lack reported receiving grants from those agencies as well as Food Allergy Research and Education.

LOS ANGELES – A peanut allergy prevention strategy based upon regular consumption of peanut-containing foods from infancy to age 5 continued to provide protection even after peanut intake was halted for a full year from age 5 to 6, according to new results from an extension of the landmark LEAP trial, known as LEAP-On, presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

The impetus for LEAP-On was the investigators’ concern that a period of peanut avoidance might cause loss of the protective state. But that didn’t occur.

“I think there is no doubt that we have prevented peanut allergy so far in these high-risk children. Next, the LEAP-Ad Lib study will tell us whether we’ve prevented it by age 10,” said Dr. Gideon Lack of King’s College London, who headed LEAP-On.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

A second major randomized trial known as EAT (Enquiring About Tolerance) presented at the meeting provided further support for early dietary introduction of allergenic foods. EAT differed from LEAP (Learning Early About Peanut Allergy) and LEAP-On in that it ambitiously randomized infants to early introduction or avoidance of not one but six allergenic foods: peanut, cooked egg, cow’s milk, fish, sesame, and wheat. Also, while LEAP and LEAP-On involved roughly 600 infants known to be at very high risk for allergy, EAT was conducted in a general population of 1,303 infants who weren’t at increased risk, all of whom were exclusively breast-fed until the intervention beginning at age 3 months.

The presentation of the LEAP-On and EAT results at the AAAAI annual meeting was a major event marked by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by same-day release of new NIAID-sponsored draft recommendations for the diagnosis and management of food allergies.

In a press conference held at the AAAAI annual meeting to announce the start of a 45-day public comment period for the draft update of the 2010 guidelines, Dr. Daniel Rotrosen, director of NIAID’s division of allergy, immunology and transplantation, said the new guidelines were developed largely in response to the compelling LEAP findings. That trial demonstrated that sustained consumption of peanut starting in infancy resulted in an 81% lower rate of peanut allergy at age 5 years compared to a strategy of peanut avoidance (N Engl J Med. 2015;372:803-13).

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

The draft guidelines, now available on the NIAID website, represent a sharp departure from the former recommendation that physicians encourage exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life followed by cautious introduction of other foods. Whereas the former orthodoxy was that delayed introduction of allergenic foods protects against development of food allergy, the new evidence-based concept supported by the LEAP and EAT findings is that just the opposite is true: that is, introduction of such foods during the period of immunologic plasticity in infancy induces tolerance.

Thus, the draft guidelines recommend that infants at high risk for peanut allergy because they have severe eczema and/or egg allergy should have introduction of peanut-containing food at 4-6 months of age to reduce their risk of peanut allergy, preceded by evaluation using peanut-specific IgE or skin prick testing to make sure it’s safe. That age window coincides with well-child visits and vaccination schedules, Dr. Rotrosen noted.

These guidelines represent the consensus of 26 organizations that participated in their development. Among them are the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Dermatology, the American College of Gastroenterology, and AAAAI.

“I expect the new guidelines, when finalized, to be endorsed by the leadership of all the participating organizations,” Dr. Rotrosen said.

The new paradigm will require cultural change, said Dr. James R. Baker Jr., CEO and chief medical officer of Food Allergy Research and Education, a nonprofit organization that provided partial funding for LEAP and LEAP-On.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“I think for a long time we’ve vilified these foods. There’s nothing inherently wrong with their intake, and that’s a message we need to get across to parents and physicians so they can start thinking differently,” he said.

“The good news about these studies is that they show there’s no reason not to do this,” Dr. Baker added. “There’s no harm that comes from the early introduction.”

Dr. Lack, who led the EAT trial, noted that the study didn’t meet it’s primary endpoint of a significantly lower prevalence of food allergy to any of the six intervention foods at age 3 years in the intention-to-treat analysis. But adherence to the demanding EAT early-introduction protocol was a problem. Indeed, only 43% of participants adhered to the study protocol. In a per-protocol analysis restricted to the adherent group, however, early introduction was associated with a highly significant 67% reduction in the relative risk of food allergy at 3 years of age compared to controls. And for the two most prevalent food allergies – to peanut and egg – the relative risk reductions in the early-introduction group were 100% and 75%, respectively.

The EAT results suggest that an effective preventive dose of peanut in infants at least 3 months of age is roughly 2 g of peanut protein per week, equivalent to just under 2 tsp of peanut butter, according to Dr. Lack.

Simultaneously with presentation of the LEAP-On and EAT trials in Los Angeles, the studies were published online at NEJM.org (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1514210 for LEAP-ON and 10.1056/NEJMoa1514209 for EAT).

LEAP-On was supported primarily by NIAID. EAT was funded mainly by the UK Foods Standards Agency and the Medical Research Council. Dr. Lack reported receiving grants from those agencies as well as Food Allergy Research and Education.

LOS ANGELES – A peanut allergy prevention strategy based upon regular consumption of peanut-containing foods from infancy to age 5 continued to provide protection even after peanut intake was halted for a full year from age 5 to 6, according to new results from an extension of the landmark LEAP trial, known as LEAP-On, presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

The impetus for LEAP-On was the investigators’ concern that a period of peanut avoidance might cause loss of the protective state. But that didn’t occur.

“I think there is no doubt that we have prevented peanut allergy so far in these high-risk children. Next, the LEAP-Ad Lib study will tell us whether we’ve prevented it by age 10,” said Dr. Gideon Lack of King’s College London, who headed LEAP-On.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

A second major randomized trial known as EAT (Enquiring About Tolerance) presented at the meeting provided further support for early dietary introduction of allergenic foods. EAT differed from LEAP (Learning Early About Peanut Allergy) and LEAP-On in that it ambitiously randomized infants to early introduction or avoidance of not one but six allergenic foods: peanut, cooked egg, cow’s milk, fish, sesame, and wheat. Also, while LEAP and LEAP-On involved roughly 600 infants known to be at very high risk for allergy, EAT was conducted in a general population of 1,303 infants who weren’t at increased risk, all of whom were exclusively breast-fed until the intervention beginning at age 3 months.

The presentation of the LEAP-On and EAT results at the AAAAI annual meeting was a major event marked by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by same-day release of new NIAID-sponsored draft recommendations for the diagnosis and management of food allergies.

In a press conference held at the AAAAI annual meeting to announce the start of a 45-day public comment period for the draft update of the 2010 guidelines, Dr. Daniel Rotrosen, director of NIAID’s division of allergy, immunology and transplantation, said the new guidelines were developed largely in response to the compelling LEAP findings. That trial demonstrated that sustained consumption of peanut starting in infancy resulted in an 81% lower rate of peanut allergy at age 5 years compared to a strategy of peanut avoidance (N Engl J Med. 2015;372:803-13).

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

The draft guidelines, now available on the NIAID website, represent a sharp departure from the former recommendation that physicians encourage exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life followed by cautious introduction of other foods. Whereas the former orthodoxy was that delayed introduction of allergenic foods protects against development of food allergy, the new evidence-based concept supported by the LEAP and EAT findings is that just the opposite is true: that is, introduction of such foods during the period of immunologic plasticity in infancy induces tolerance.

Thus, the draft guidelines recommend that infants at high risk for peanut allergy because they have severe eczema and/or egg allergy should have introduction of peanut-containing food at 4-6 months of age to reduce their risk of peanut allergy, preceded by evaluation using peanut-specific IgE or skin prick testing to make sure it’s safe. That age window coincides with well-child visits and vaccination schedules, Dr. Rotrosen noted.

These guidelines represent the consensus of 26 organizations that participated in their development. Among them are the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Dermatology, the American College of Gastroenterology, and AAAAI.

“I expect the new guidelines, when finalized, to be endorsed by the leadership of all the participating organizations,” Dr. Rotrosen said.

The new paradigm will require cultural change, said Dr. James R. Baker Jr., CEO and chief medical officer of Food Allergy Research and Education, a nonprofit organization that provided partial funding for LEAP and LEAP-On.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“I think for a long time we’ve vilified these foods. There’s nothing inherently wrong with their intake, and that’s a message we need to get across to parents and physicians so they can start thinking differently,” he said.

“The good news about these studies is that they show there’s no reason not to do this,” Dr. Baker added. “There’s no harm that comes from the early introduction.”

Dr. Lack, who led the EAT trial, noted that the study didn’t meet it’s primary endpoint of a significantly lower prevalence of food allergy to any of the six intervention foods at age 3 years in the intention-to-treat analysis. But adherence to the demanding EAT early-introduction protocol was a problem. Indeed, only 43% of participants adhered to the study protocol. In a per-protocol analysis restricted to the adherent group, however, early introduction was associated with a highly significant 67% reduction in the relative risk of food allergy at 3 years of age compared to controls. And for the two most prevalent food allergies – to peanut and egg – the relative risk reductions in the early-introduction group were 100% and 75%, respectively.

The EAT results suggest that an effective preventive dose of peanut in infants at least 3 months of age is roughly 2 g of peanut protein per week, equivalent to just under 2 tsp of peanut butter, according to Dr. Lack.

Simultaneously with presentation of the LEAP-On and EAT trials in Los Angeles, the studies were published online at NEJM.org (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1514210 for LEAP-ON and 10.1056/NEJMoa1514209 for EAT).

LEAP-On was supported primarily by NIAID. EAT was funded mainly by the UK Foods Standards Agency and the Medical Research Council. Dr. Lack reported receiving grants from those agencies as well as Food Allergy Research and Education.

Dr. Murthy, who previously worked as a hospitalist in Boston, spoke about how the urgency to build a foundation for health in America, where chronic illness and healthcare costs have skyrocketed, could not be any greater. Health is the key to opportunity, he said. He explored the following strategies to make America healthier:

1. Make the pursuit of healthy appealing;
2. Improve the safety of our communities;
3. Focus on the mind and spirit; and,
4. Cultivate our ability to give and receive kindness.

Specifically, hospitalists should contemplate the following questions:

• How can hospitalists leverage their leadership in the hospital to improve systems and create a culture that supports healing and health?
• How can hospitalists be a powerful of force of change both inside and outside the hospital?
• How can hospitalists inspire the next generation of physicians to safeguard the health of their community by treating and preventing illness?

Dr. Murthy challenged hospitalists to commit to strengthening the foundation of health in our country and shift our culture towards the well-being of our communities through prevention.

He left the group by saying, “In the end, the world gets better when people choose to come together to make it better.” TH

Dr. Murthy, who previously worked as a hospitalist in Boston, spoke about how the urgency to build a foundation for health in America, where chronic illness and healthcare costs have skyrocketed, could not be any greater. Health is the key to opportunity, he said. He explored the following strategies to make America healthier:

1. Make the pursuit of healthy appealing;
2. Improve the safety of our communities;
3. Focus on the mind and spirit; and,
4. Cultivate our ability to give and receive kindness.

Specifically, hospitalists should contemplate the following questions:

• How can hospitalists leverage their leadership in the hospital to improve systems and create a culture that supports healing and health?
• How can hospitalists be a powerful of force of change both inside and outside the hospital?
• How can hospitalists inspire the next generation of physicians to safeguard the health of their community by treating and preventing illness?

Dr. Murthy challenged hospitalists to commit to strengthening the foundation of health in our country and shift our culture towards the well-being of our communities through prevention.

He left the group by saying, “In the end, the world gets better when people choose to come together to make it better.” TH

Dr. Murthy, who previously worked as a hospitalist in Boston, spoke about how the urgency to build a foundation for health in America, where chronic illness and healthcare costs have skyrocketed, could not be any greater. Health is the key to opportunity, he said. He explored the following strategies to make America healthier:

1. Make the pursuit of healthy appealing;
2. Improve the safety of our communities;
3. Focus on the mind and spirit; and,
4. Cultivate our ability to give and receive kindness.

Specifically, hospitalists should contemplate the following questions:

• How can hospitalists leverage their leadership in the hospital to improve systems and create a culture that supports healing and health?
• How can hospitalists be a powerful of force of change both inside and outside the hospital?
• How can hospitalists inspire the next generation of physicians to safeguard the health of their community by treating and preventing illness?

Dr. Murthy challenged hospitalists to commit to strengthening the foundation of health in our country and shift our culture towards the well-being of our communities through prevention.

He left the group by saying, “In the end, the world gets better when people choose to come together to make it better.” TH

LOS ANGELES – Adults over age 55 with asthma and depression have nearly twice as many emergency department visits for asthma as do asthma patients without depression, based on findings in 402 asthma patients, Dr. Pooja O. Patel reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

Comorbid depression also is associated with more asthma-related sleep disturbances and worse health-related quality of life, even though spirometry findings are similar in asthma patients with and without depression, added Dr. Patel of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

jancin

She analyzed data on 7,256 adults over age 55 who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey during 2007-2012. The prevalence of physician-diagnosed asthma in this nationally representative group of older adults was 5.5%. And 196 of those 402 asthma patients, or fully 49%, had comorbid depression as defined by their scores on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), a validated brief and reliable self-administered measure of depression severity.

One or more emergency department visits for asthma within the last 12 months occurred in 18.8% of the group with asthma alone, compared with 28.1% in those with comorbid depression. In a multivariate regression analysis adjusted for the demographic differences, this translated to a twofold increased likelihood of ED visits specifically for asthma in the group with asthma and depression.

These data make a compelling case for routine screening for depression in older adults with asthma. The PHQ-9 is a good, simple tool for this purpose. Future studies will need to be done in order to learn whether early identification and treatment of comorbid depression in older asthmatic adults will result in improved asthma outcomes, but that is a reasonable hope, Dr. Patel added.

Why is asthma control worse in older adults with depression? In an interview, Dr. Patel said she thinks demographic differences may play a role. The older asthma patients with depression had less education and lower socioeconomic status than those without depression. Also, depression could adversely affect adherence to asthma controller medications, as depression is linked to worse medication adherence.

Dr. Patel reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

LOS ANGELES – Adults over age 55 with asthma and depression have nearly twice as many emergency department visits for asthma as do asthma patients without depression, based on findings in 402 asthma patients, Dr. Pooja O. Patel reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

Comorbid depression also is associated with more asthma-related sleep disturbances and worse health-related quality of life, even though spirometry findings are similar in asthma patients with and without depression, added Dr. Patel of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

jancin

She analyzed data on 7,256 adults over age 55 who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey during 2007-2012. The prevalence of physician-diagnosed asthma in this nationally representative group of older adults was 5.5%. And 196 of those 402 asthma patients, or fully 49%, had comorbid depression as defined by their scores on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), a validated brief and reliable self-administered measure of depression severity.

One or more emergency department visits for asthma within the last 12 months occurred in 18.8% of the group with asthma alone, compared with 28.1% in those with comorbid depression. In a multivariate regression analysis adjusted for the demographic differences, this translated to a twofold increased likelihood of ED visits specifically for asthma in the group with asthma and depression.

These data make a compelling case for routine screening for depression in older adults with asthma. The PHQ-9 is a good, simple tool for this purpose. Future studies will need to be done in order to learn whether early identification and treatment of comorbid depression in older asthmatic adults will result in improved asthma outcomes, but that is a reasonable hope, Dr. Patel added.

Why is asthma control worse in older adults with depression? In an interview, Dr. Patel said she thinks demographic differences may play a role. The older asthma patients with depression had less education and lower socioeconomic status than those without depression. Also, depression could adversely affect adherence to asthma controller medications, as depression is linked to worse medication adherence.

Dr. Patel reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

LOS ANGELES – Adults over age 55 with asthma and depression have nearly twice as many emergency department visits for asthma as do asthma patients without depression, based on findings in 402 asthma patients, Dr. Pooja O. Patel reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

Comorbid depression also is associated with more asthma-related sleep disturbances and worse health-related quality of life, even though spirometry findings are similar in asthma patients with and without depression, added Dr. Patel of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

jancin

She analyzed data on 7,256 adults over age 55 who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey during 2007-2012. The prevalence of physician-diagnosed asthma in this nationally representative group of older adults was 5.5%. And 196 of those 402 asthma patients, or fully 49%, had comorbid depression as defined by their scores on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), a validated brief and reliable self-administered measure of depression severity.

One or more emergency department visits for asthma within the last 12 months occurred in 18.8% of the group with asthma alone, compared with 28.1% in those with comorbid depression. In a multivariate regression analysis adjusted for the demographic differences, this translated to a twofold increased likelihood of ED visits specifically for asthma in the group with asthma and depression.

These data make a compelling case for routine screening for depression in older adults with asthma. The PHQ-9 is a good, simple tool for this purpose. Future studies will need to be done in order to learn whether early identification and treatment of comorbid depression in older asthmatic adults will result in improved asthma outcomes, but that is a reasonable hope, Dr. Patel added.

Why is asthma control worse in older adults with depression? In an interview, Dr. Patel said she thinks demographic differences may play a role. The older asthma patients with depression had less education and lower socioeconomic status than those without depression. Also, depression could adversely affect adherence to asthma controller medications, as depression is linked to worse medication adherence.

Dr. Patel reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

It is always noteworthy when the headlines in the medical and mainstream media appear to be the same.

Typically, this means one of two things: 1) Sensationalism has propelled a minor issue into the common lexicon; or 2) a truly serious issue has grown to the point where the whole world is finally taking notice.

With the recent resurgence of Zika virus, something that initially seemed to be the former has unmistakably developed into the latter, and health care providers are again facing an age-old question: How do we adequately fight an evolving and serious illness in the midst of an ever-changing battlefield?

As has been the case countless times before, the answer to this question really lies in early identification. One might think that the advent of modern technology would make this a much easier proposition, but that has not exactly been the case.

In fact, recent Ebola and Zika outbreaks have actually served to demonstrate a big problem in many modern electronic health records: poor clinical decision support.

In this column, we felt it would be helpful to highlight this shortcoming, and make the suggestion that in the world of EHRs …

Change needs to be faster than Zika

Zika virus is not new (it was first identified in the Zika Forest of Uganda in 1947), and neither is the concept of serious mosquito-born illness. While the current Zika hot zones are South America, Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean, case reports indicate the virus is quickly migrating. At the time of this writing, more than 150 travel-associated cases of Zika have been identified in the continental United States, and it is clear that the consequences of undiagnosed Zika in pregnancy can be devastating.

Furthermore, Zika is just the latest of many viruses to threaten the health and welfare of modern civilization (for example, Ebola, swine flu, SARS, and so on), so screening and prevention is far from a novel idea.

Unfortunately, electronic record vendors don’t seem to have gotten the message that the ability to adapt quickly to public health threats should be a core element of any modern EHR.

On the contrary, EHRs seem to be designed for fixed “best practice” workflows, and updates are often slow in coming (typically requiring a major upgrade or “patch”). This renders them fairly unable to react nimbly to change.

This fact became evident to us as we attempted to implement a reminder for staff members to perform a Zika-focused travel history on all patients. We felt it was critical for this reminder to be prominent, be easy to interact with, and appear at the most appropriate time for screening.

Despite multiple attempts, we discovered that our top-ranked, industry-leading EHR was unable to do this seemingly straightforward task, and eventually we reverted to the age-old practice of hanging signs in all of the exam rooms. These encouraged patients to inform their doctor “of worrisome symptoms or recent travel history to affected areas.”

We refuse to accept the inability of any modern electronic health record to create simple and flexible clinical support rules and improve on the efficacy of the paper sign. This, especially in light of the fact that one of the core requirements of the Meaningful Use (MU) program – for which all EHRs are certified – is clinical decision support!

Unfortunately, the MU guidelines are not specific, so most vendors choose to include a standard set of rules and don’t allow the ability for customization. That just isn’t good enough. If Ebola and Zika have taught the health information technology community one thing, it’s that …

It is time for smarter EHRs!

For many people, the notion of artificial intelligence seems to be science fiction, but they don’t realize they are carrying incredible “AI” devices with them everywhere they go. We are, of course, referring to our cell phones, which seem to be getting more intelligent all the time.

If you own an iPhone, you may have noticed it often seems to know where you are about to drive and how long it will take you to get there. This can be a bit creepy at first, until you realize how helpful – and smart – it actually is.

Essentially, our devices are constantly collecting data, reading the patterns of our lives, and learning ways to enhance them. Smartphones have revolutionized how we communicate, work, and play. Why, then, can’t our electronic health record software do the same?

It will surprise exactly none of our readers that the Meaningful Use program has fallen short of its goal of promoting the true benefits of electronic records. Many critics have suggested that the incentive program has faltered because EHRs have made physicians work harder, without helping them work smarter.

Zika virus proves the critics correct. Beyond creating just simple reminders as mentioned above, EHRs should be able to make intelligent suggestions based on patient data and current practice guidelines.

Some EHRs get it half correct. For example, they are “smart” enough to remind clinicians that women of a certain age should have mammograms, but they fall short in the ability to efficiently update those reminders when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updates the screening recommendation (as they did recently).

Other EHRs do allow you to customize preventative health reminders, but do not place them in a position of prominence – so they are easily overlooked by providers as they care for patients.

Few products seem to get it just right, and it’s time for this to change.

Simply put, as questions in the media loom about how to stop this rising threat, we as frontline health care providers should have the tools – and the decision support – required to provide meaningful answers.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.

It is always noteworthy when the headlines in the medical and mainstream media appear to be the same.

Typically, this means one of two things: 1) Sensationalism has propelled a minor issue into the common lexicon; or 2) a truly serious issue has grown to the point where the whole world is finally taking notice.

With the recent resurgence of Zika virus, something that initially seemed to be the former has unmistakably developed into the latter, and health care providers are again facing an age-old question: How do we adequately fight an evolving and serious illness in the midst of an ever-changing battlefield?

As has been the case countless times before, the answer to this question really lies in early identification. One might think that the advent of modern technology would make this a much easier proposition, but that has not exactly been the case.

In fact, recent Ebola and Zika outbreaks have actually served to demonstrate a big problem in many modern electronic health records: poor clinical decision support.

In this column, we felt it would be helpful to highlight this shortcoming, and make the suggestion that in the world of EHRs …

Change needs to be faster than Zika

Zika virus is not new (it was first identified in the Zika Forest of Uganda in 1947), and neither is the concept of serious mosquito-born illness. While the current Zika hot zones are South America, Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean, case reports indicate the virus is quickly migrating. At the time of this writing, more than 150 travel-associated cases of Zika have been identified in the continental United States, and it is clear that the consequences of undiagnosed Zika in pregnancy can be devastating.

Furthermore, Zika is just the latest of many viruses to threaten the health and welfare of modern civilization (for example, Ebola, swine flu, SARS, and so on), so screening and prevention is far from a novel idea.

Unfortunately, electronic record vendors don’t seem to have gotten the message that the ability to adapt quickly to public health threats should be a core element of any modern EHR.

On the contrary, EHRs seem to be designed for fixed “best practice” workflows, and updates are often slow in coming (typically requiring a major upgrade or “patch”). This renders them fairly unable to react nimbly to change.

This fact became evident to us as we attempted to implement a reminder for staff members to perform a Zika-focused travel history on all patients. We felt it was critical for this reminder to be prominent, be easy to interact with, and appear at the most appropriate time for screening.

Despite multiple attempts, we discovered that our top-ranked, industry-leading EHR was unable to do this seemingly straightforward task, and eventually we reverted to the age-old practice of hanging signs in all of the exam rooms. These encouraged patients to inform their doctor “of worrisome symptoms or recent travel history to affected areas.”

We refuse to accept the inability of any modern electronic health record to create simple and flexible clinical support rules and improve on the efficacy of the paper sign. This, especially in light of the fact that one of the core requirements of the Meaningful Use (MU) program – for which all EHRs are certified – is clinical decision support!

Unfortunately, the MU guidelines are not specific, so most vendors choose to include a standard set of rules and don’t allow the ability for customization. That just isn’t good enough. If Ebola and Zika have taught the health information technology community one thing, it’s that …

It is time for smarter EHRs!

For many people, the notion of artificial intelligence seems to be science fiction, but they don’t realize they are carrying incredible “AI” devices with them everywhere they go. We are, of course, referring to our cell phones, which seem to be getting more intelligent all the time.

If you own an iPhone, you may have noticed it often seems to know where you are about to drive and how long it will take you to get there. This can be a bit creepy at first, until you realize how helpful – and smart – it actually is.

Essentially, our devices are constantly collecting data, reading the patterns of our lives, and learning ways to enhance them. Smartphones have revolutionized how we communicate, work, and play. Why, then, can’t our electronic health record software do the same?

It will surprise exactly none of our readers that the Meaningful Use program has fallen short of its goal of promoting the true benefits of electronic records. Many critics have suggested that the incentive program has faltered because EHRs have made physicians work harder, without helping them work smarter.

Zika virus proves the critics correct. Beyond creating just simple reminders as mentioned above, EHRs should be able to make intelligent suggestions based on patient data and current practice guidelines.

Some EHRs get it half correct. For example, they are “smart” enough to remind clinicians that women of a certain age should have mammograms, but they fall short in the ability to efficiently update those reminders when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updates the screening recommendation (as they did recently).

Other EHRs do allow you to customize preventative health reminders, but do not place them in a position of prominence – so they are easily overlooked by providers as they care for patients.

Few products seem to get it just right, and it’s time for this to change.

Simply put, as questions in the media loom about how to stop this rising threat, we as frontline health care providers should have the tools – and the decision support – required to provide meaningful answers.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.

It is always noteworthy when the headlines in the medical and mainstream media appear to be the same.

Typically, this means one of two things: 1) Sensationalism has propelled a minor issue into the common lexicon; or 2) a truly serious issue has grown to the point where the whole world is finally taking notice.

With the recent resurgence of Zika virus, something that initially seemed to be the former has unmistakably developed into the latter, and health care providers are again facing an age-old question: How do we adequately fight an evolving and serious illness in the midst of an ever-changing battlefield?

As has been the case countless times before, the answer to this question really lies in early identification. One might think that the advent of modern technology would make this a much easier proposition, but that has not exactly been the case.

In fact, recent Ebola and Zika outbreaks have actually served to demonstrate a big problem in many modern electronic health records: poor clinical decision support.

In this column, we felt it would be helpful to highlight this shortcoming, and make the suggestion that in the world of EHRs …

Change needs to be faster than Zika

Zika virus is not new (it was first identified in the Zika Forest of Uganda in 1947), and neither is the concept of serious mosquito-born illness. While the current Zika hot zones are South America, Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean, case reports indicate the virus is quickly migrating. At the time of this writing, more than 150 travel-associated cases of Zika have been identified in the continental United States, and it is clear that the consequences of undiagnosed Zika in pregnancy can be devastating.

Furthermore, Zika is just the latest of many viruses to threaten the health and welfare of modern civilization (for example, Ebola, swine flu, SARS, and so on), so screening and prevention is far from a novel idea.

Unfortunately, electronic record vendors don’t seem to have gotten the message that the ability to adapt quickly to public health threats should be a core element of any modern EHR.

On the contrary, EHRs seem to be designed for fixed “best practice” workflows, and updates are often slow in coming (typically requiring a major upgrade or “patch”). This renders them fairly unable to react nimbly to change.

This fact became evident to us as we attempted to implement a reminder for staff members to perform a Zika-focused travel history on all patients. We felt it was critical for this reminder to be prominent, be easy to interact with, and appear at the most appropriate time for screening.

Despite multiple attempts, we discovered that our top-ranked, industry-leading EHR was unable to do this seemingly straightforward task, and eventually we reverted to the age-old practice of hanging signs in all of the exam rooms. These encouraged patients to inform their doctor “of worrisome symptoms or recent travel history to affected areas.”

We refuse to accept the inability of any modern electronic health record to create simple and flexible clinical support rules and improve on the efficacy of the paper sign. This, especially in light of the fact that one of the core requirements of the Meaningful Use (MU) program – for which all EHRs are certified – is clinical decision support!

Unfortunately, the MU guidelines are not specific, so most vendors choose to include a standard set of rules and don’t allow the ability for customization. That just isn’t good enough. If Ebola and Zika have taught the health information technology community one thing, it’s that …

It is time for smarter EHRs!

For many people, the notion of artificial intelligence seems to be science fiction, but they don’t realize they are carrying incredible “AI” devices with them everywhere they go. We are, of course, referring to our cell phones, which seem to be getting more intelligent all the time.

If you own an iPhone, you may have noticed it often seems to know where you are about to drive and how long it will take you to get there. This can be a bit creepy at first, until you realize how helpful – and smart – it actually is.

Essentially, our devices are constantly collecting data, reading the patterns of our lives, and learning ways to enhance them. Smartphones have revolutionized how we communicate, work, and play. Why, then, can’t our electronic health record software do the same?

It will surprise exactly none of our readers that the Meaningful Use program has fallen short of its goal of promoting the true benefits of electronic records. Many critics have suggested that the incentive program has faltered because EHRs have made physicians work harder, without helping them work smarter.

Zika virus proves the critics correct. Beyond creating just simple reminders as mentioned above, EHRs should be able to make intelligent suggestions based on patient data and current practice guidelines.

Some EHRs get it half correct. For example, they are “smart” enough to remind clinicians that women of a certain age should have mammograms, but they fall short in the ability to efficiently update those reminders when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updates the screening recommendation (as they did recently).

Other EHRs do allow you to customize preventative health reminders, but do not place them in a position of prominence – so they are easily overlooked by providers as they care for patients.

Few products seem to get it just right, and it’s time for this to change.

Simply put, as questions in the media loom about how to stop this rising threat, we as frontline health care providers should have the tools – and the decision support – required to provide meaningful answers.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.

Ibrutinib (Imbruvica) has been approved as a first-line treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), irrespective of their treatment history, according to a statement issued by the manufacturer, AbbVie.

The approval is based on data from the randomized, multicenter, open-label phase III RESONATE-2 trial, which evaluated the use of ibrutinib versus chlorambucil in 269 treatment-naive patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) aged 65 years or older. The RESONATE-2 data were presented at the 2015 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

VashiDonsk/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0

“The progression-free survival data seen in these previously untreated CLL patients are strong and encouraging,” Dr. Jan Burger of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and the lead investigator of RESONATE-2, said in the AbbVie statement. “This is especially important for first-line CLL patients, when considering the safety profile. This treatment represents another option for these patients.”

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network also recently published an update to its clinical practice guidelines for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas, granting Imbruvica a category 1 recommendation for certain CLL patients, including as a first-line treatment option for frail CLL patients with significant comorbidities, as well as for CLL patients with or without del 17p or the genetic mutation TP53 who are 70 years or older, or younger patients with significant comorbidities, the AbbVie statement noted.

Imbruvica has been jointly developed and commercialized by Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company, and by Janssen Biotech.

mdales@frontlinemedcom.com

Ibrutinib (Imbruvica) has been approved as a first-line treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), irrespective of their treatment history, according to a statement issued by the manufacturer, AbbVie.

The approval is based on data from the randomized, multicenter, open-label phase III RESONATE-2 trial, which evaluated the use of ibrutinib versus chlorambucil in 269 treatment-naive patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) aged 65 years or older. The RESONATE-2 data were presented at the 2015 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

VashiDonsk/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0

“The progression-free survival data seen in these previously untreated CLL patients are strong and encouraging,” Dr. Jan Burger of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and the lead investigator of RESONATE-2, said in the AbbVie statement. “This is especially important for first-line CLL patients, when considering the safety profile. This treatment represents another option for these patients.”

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network also recently published an update to its clinical practice guidelines for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas, granting Imbruvica a category 1 recommendation for certain CLL patients, including as a first-line treatment option for frail CLL patients with significant comorbidities, as well as for CLL patients with or without del 17p or the genetic mutation TP53 who are 70 years or older, or younger patients with significant comorbidities, the AbbVie statement noted.

Imbruvica has been jointly developed and commercialized by Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company, and by Janssen Biotech.

mdales@frontlinemedcom.com

Ibrutinib (Imbruvica) has been approved as a first-line treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), irrespective of their treatment history, according to a statement issued by the manufacturer, AbbVie.

The approval is based on data from the randomized, multicenter, open-label phase III RESONATE-2 trial, which evaluated the use of ibrutinib versus chlorambucil in 269 treatment-naive patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) aged 65 years or older. The RESONATE-2 data were presented at the 2015 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

VashiDonsk/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0

“The progression-free survival data seen in these previously untreated CLL patients are strong and encouraging,” Dr. Jan Burger of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and the lead investigator of RESONATE-2, said in the AbbVie statement. “This is especially important for first-line CLL patients, when considering the safety profile. This treatment represents another option for these patients.”

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network also recently published an update to its clinical practice guidelines for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas, granting Imbruvica a category 1 recommendation for certain CLL patients, including as a first-line treatment option for frail CLL patients with significant comorbidities, as well as for CLL patients with or without del 17p or the genetic mutation TP53 who are 70 years or older, or younger patients with significant comorbidities, the AbbVie statement noted.

Imbruvica has been jointly developed and commercialized by Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company, and by Janssen Biotech.

mdales@frontlinemedcom.com

If primary care physicians initiated therapy in patients with mild to moderate acne, they could significantly decrease referrals to dermatologists, reduce patient waiting times, and cut health care costs, based on a study published online March 6 in JAMA Dermatology.

The researchers used retrospective data to model two treatment algorithms for initiating acne therapy based on evaluations of 253 dermatology referrals by primary care physicians at a single center. Half of the acne patients had not received any topical or systemic treatment prior to their referral to a dermatologist.

Two treatment algorithms were modeled for initiating acne therapy: In the first, the primary care physicians initiated topical acne treatments; in the second, they initiated topical treatments and systemic antibiotics.

If primary care physicians initiated topical acne therapy, the first algorithm predicted a 48% reduction in initial referrals to dermatologists, a 40% overall reduction in referrals, a mean 28.6-day reduction in delay to treatment, and an associated cost savings of $20.28 per patient.

Following the second algorithm entirely eliminated referrals for 72% of patients, reduced initial referrals by 86.7%, and reduced the mean delay to treatment by 27.9 days; the cost savings was $35.68 per patient, wrote Dr. Kristina J. Liu of the Harvard Combined Dermatology Residency Program and coauthors (JAMA Dermatol. 2016 March 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.0183).

“Our findings are extracted from and applicable to patients who already have access to primary care clinicians. While patients can be efficiently treated by presenting directly to a dermatologist, in many health plans, a referral from primary care is a requisite step that precludes this possibility. Furthermore, 235 patients (93%) in our cohort were being managed by their primary care clinicians for other health conditions in addition to acne. Given these other health concerns, the patients in our study would likely access their primary care clinicians regardless of the problem of acne. Thus, the judicious use of primary care resources to manage acne as part of the holistic care of the patient can prove to be a time- and cost-saving strategy,” the authors wrote.

In addition, 32% of the referrals in the study were for acne plus another dermatologic issue, and such patients likely require dermatologic evaluation regardless of primary care clinician-driven acne management, the authors added.

One author declared employment with Walgreens Boots Alliance. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

If primary care physicians initiated therapy in patients with mild to moderate acne, they could significantly decrease referrals to dermatologists, reduce patient waiting times, and cut health care costs, based on a study published online March 6 in JAMA Dermatology.

The researchers used retrospective data to model two treatment algorithms for initiating acne therapy based on evaluations of 253 dermatology referrals by primary care physicians at a single center. Half of the acne patients had not received any topical or systemic treatment prior to their referral to a dermatologist.

Two treatment algorithms were modeled for initiating acne therapy: In the first, the primary care physicians initiated topical acne treatments; in the second, they initiated topical treatments and systemic antibiotics.

If primary care physicians initiated topical acne therapy, the first algorithm predicted a 48% reduction in initial referrals to dermatologists, a 40% overall reduction in referrals, a mean 28.6-day reduction in delay to treatment, and an associated cost savings of $20.28 per patient.

Following the second algorithm entirely eliminated referrals for 72% of patients, reduced initial referrals by 86.7%, and reduced the mean delay to treatment by 27.9 days; the cost savings was $35.68 per patient, wrote Dr. Kristina J. Liu of the Harvard Combined Dermatology Residency Program and coauthors (JAMA Dermatol. 2016 March 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.0183).

“Our findings are extracted from and applicable to patients who already have access to primary care clinicians. While patients can be efficiently treated by presenting directly to a dermatologist, in many health plans, a referral from primary care is a requisite step that precludes this possibility. Furthermore, 235 patients (93%) in our cohort were being managed by their primary care clinicians for other health conditions in addition to acne. Given these other health concerns, the patients in our study would likely access their primary care clinicians regardless of the problem of acne. Thus, the judicious use of primary care resources to manage acne as part of the holistic care of the patient can prove to be a time- and cost-saving strategy,” the authors wrote.

In addition, 32% of the referrals in the study were for acne plus another dermatologic issue, and such patients likely require dermatologic evaluation regardless of primary care clinician-driven acne management, the authors added.

One author declared employment with Walgreens Boots Alliance. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

If primary care physicians initiated therapy in patients with mild to moderate acne, they could significantly decrease referrals to dermatologists, reduce patient waiting times, and cut health care costs, based on a study published online March 6 in JAMA Dermatology.

The researchers used retrospective data to model two treatment algorithms for initiating acne therapy based on evaluations of 253 dermatology referrals by primary care physicians at a single center. Half of the acne patients had not received any topical or systemic treatment prior to their referral to a dermatologist.

Two treatment algorithms were modeled for initiating acne therapy: In the first, the primary care physicians initiated topical acne treatments; in the second, they initiated topical treatments and systemic antibiotics.

If primary care physicians initiated topical acne therapy, the first algorithm predicted a 48% reduction in initial referrals to dermatologists, a 40% overall reduction in referrals, a mean 28.6-day reduction in delay to treatment, and an associated cost savings of $20.28 per patient.

Following the second algorithm entirely eliminated referrals for 72% of patients, reduced initial referrals by 86.7%, and reduced the mean delay to treatment by 27.9 days; the cost savings was $35.68 per patient, wrote Dr. Kristina J. Liu of the Harvard Combined Dermatology Residency Program and coauthors (JAMA Dermatol. 2016 March 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.0183).

“Our findings are extracted from and applicable to patients who already have access to primary care clinicians. While patients can be efficiently treated by presenting directly to a dermatologist, in many health plans, a referral from primary care is a requisite step that precludes this possibility. Furthermore, 235 patients (93%) in our cohort were being managed by their primary care clinicians for other health conditions in addition to acne. Given these other health concerns, the patients in our study would likely access their primary care clinicians regardless of the problem of acne. Thus, the judicious use of primary care resources to manage acne as part of the holistic care of the patient can prove to be a time- and cost-saving strategy,” the authors wrote.

In addition, 32% of the referrals in the study were for acne plus another dermatologic issue, and such patients likely require dermatologic evaluation regardless of primary care clinician-driven acne management, the authors added.

One author declared employment with Walgreens Boots Alliance. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

WASHINGTON – Almost 41% of black women surveyed described hair loss that was consistent with central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), but only about 9% said they had been diagnosed with the condition, Dr. Yolanda Lenzy reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In a video interview at the meeting, Dr. Lenzy of the University of Connecticut, Farmington, discussed the results of a hair survey she conducted with the Black Women’s Health Study at Boston University’s Slone Epidemiology Center. Nearly 6,000 women have completed the survey to date.

“For many years, it was thought to be due to hair styling practices,” but there are new data showing that genetics can be an important cause, she said, referring to research from South Africa indicating that CCCA can be inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion.

Dr. Lenzy, who practices dermatology in Chicopee, Mass., used a central hair loss photographic scale in the study, which also can be helpful in the office to monitor hair loss and “to quantify how much hair loss a person has … in terms of: Are they getting worse? Do they go from stage 3 to stage 5 or stage 1 to stage 3?”

emechcatie@frontlinemedcom.com

WASHINGTON – Almost 41% of black women surveyed described hair loss that was consistent with central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), but only about 9% said they had been diagnosed with the condition, Dr. Yolanda Lenzy reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In a video interview at the meeting, Dr. Lenzy of the University of Connecticut, Farmington, discussed the results of a hair survey she conducted with the Black Women’s Health Study at Boston University’s Slone Epidemiology Center. Nearly 6,000 women have completed the survey to date.

“For many years, it was thought to be due to hair styling practices,” but there are new data showing that genetics can be an important cause, she said, referring to research from South Africa indicating that CCCA can be inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion.

Dr. Lenzy, who practices dermatology in Chicopee, Mass., used a central hair loss photographic scale in the study, which also can be helpful in the office to monitor hair loss and “to quantify how much hair loss a person has … in terms of: Are they getting worse? Do they go from stage 3 to stage 5 or stage 1 to stage 3?”

emechcatie@frontlinemedcom.com

WASHINGTON – Almost 41% of black women surveyed described hair loss that was consistent with central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), but only about 9% said they had been diagnosed with the condition, Dr. Yolanda Lenzy reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In a video interview at the meeting, Dr. Lenzy of the University of Connecticut, Farmington, discussed the results of a hair survey she conducted with the Black Women’s Health Study at Boston University’s Slone Epidemiology Center. Nearly 6,000 women have completed the survey to date.

“For many years, it was thought to be due to hair styling practices,” but there are new data showing that genetics can be an important cause, she said, referring to research from South Africa indicating that CCCA can be inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion.

Dr. Lenzy, who practices dermatology in Chicopee, Mass., used a central hair loss photographic scale in the study, which also can be helpful in the office to monitor hair loss and “to quantify how much hair loss a person has … in terms of: Are they getting worse? Do they go from stage 3 to stage 5 or stage 1 to stage 3?”

emechcatie@frontlinemedcom.com

Click here to download the digital edition.

Click here to download the digital edition.

Click here to download the digital edition.