User login
News and Views that Matter to Pediatricians
The leading independent newspaper covering news and commentary in pediatrics.
2019-nCoV outbreak: A few lessons learned for pediatric practices
In late January, signs were posted in all of the offices in our faculty medical practice building.
Combined with current worldwide health concerns and flu season, we are now asking all patients two questions:
1. Do you have a fever, cough or shortness of breath?
2. Have you traveled to China in the last 2 weeks, or have you had contact with someone who has and who now is sick?
Similar signs appeared in medical offices and EDs across the city. Truth be told, when the signs first went up, some thought it was an overreaction. I practice in a city in the Southeast that is not a port of entry and has no scheduled international passenger flights. Wuhan City, China and the threat of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) seemed very far away.
As the international tally of cases has grown, so have local concerns.
Hopefully, proactive public health measures to care for the few individuals currently infected in the United States and appropriately assessing individuals arriving from mainland China will prevent widespread circulation of 2019-nCoV here. If this is the case, most of us likely will never see a case of the virus. Still, there are important lessons to be learned from current preparedness efforts.
A travel history is important. Several years ago, during the height of concern over the spread of Ebola, the health care systems in which I practice asked everyone about travel to West Africa as soon as they approached the registration desk. In the intervening years, asking about a travel history largely was delegated to providers, and I suspect it largely was driven by patient presentation. Child presenting with 10 days of fever? The clinician likely took a travel history. Child presenting for runny nose, ear ache, or rash? Maybe not. With more consistent screening, we are learning how frequently our patients and their families do travel, and that is helping us expand our differential diagnosis.
We need to practice cough etiquette. Patients who endorse respiratory symptoms as part of 2019 n-CoV screening are handed a mask. Those who have traveled to China in the last 14 days are promptly escorted to an exam room. In truth, we should be following cough etiquette and offering all patients with respiratory symptoms a mask. Heightened awareness of this practice may help prevent the spread of much more common viruses such as influenza. Reliable processes to recognize and rapidly triage patients with an infectious illness are critically important in ambulatory settings, and now we have an opportunity to trial and improve these processes. No one wants a child with measles or chicken pox to sit in the waiting room!
Offices must stock personal protective equipment to comply with standard precautions. The recommended PPE when caring for a patient with 2019 n-CoV includes a gown, gloves, mask (n95 or PAPR if available), and eye protection, such as a face shield or goggles. An initial survey of PPE supplies locally revealed of shortage of PPE for eye protection in some offices. Eye protection should be readily available in pediatric and other primary care offices because it must be used as part of standard precautions during procedures likely to generate droplets of blood or body fluids. Examples of common procedures that require eye protection include swabbing the nasopharynx to obtain a specimen for respiratory virus testing or swabbing the throat to test for group A streptococcus.
We should use diagnostic testing judiciously. Over the last couple of weeks, we’ve had a couple of patients who wanted to be tested for 2019 n-CoV but did not meet person under investigation (PUI) criteria. Public health authorities, who must approve all 2019 n-CoV testing, said no. This is enforced diagnostic stewardship, but it is a reminder that, when a diagnostic test is performed in a person with a low likelihood of disease, there is a risk of a false-positive result. What if we applied this principle to tests we send routinely? We would send fewer urine cultures in patients with normal urinalyses and stop testing infants for Clostridioides difficile.
Frontline providers must partner with public health colleagues during outbreaks. Providers have been instructed to immediately notify local or state health departments when a patient is suspected of having 2019 n-CoV specifically because the PUI criteria are met. This notification was crucial in diagnosing the first cases of 2019 n-CoV in the United States. Nine of the first 11 U.S. cases were in travelers from Wuhan, and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, eight of these “were identified as a result of patients seeking clinical care for symptoms and clinicians connecting with the appropriate public health systems.” Locally, daytime and after hours phone numbers for the health department have been posted in offices across our health care system. The state health department is hosting well-attended webinars to provide updates and answer questions from clinicians. We may never have a case of 2019 n-CoV in Kentucky, but activities like these build relationships between providers and our colleagues in public health, strengthening infrastructure and the capacity to respond to future outbreaks. I suspect the same is true in many other communities.
Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.
In late January, signs were posted in all of the offices in our faculty medical practice building.
Combined with current worldwide health concerns and flu season, we are now asking all patients two questions:
1. Do you have a fever, cough or shortness of breath?
2. Have you traveled to China in the last 2 weeks, or have you had contact with someone who has and who now is sick?
Similar signs appeared in medical offices and EDs across the city. Truth be told, when the signs first went up, some thought it was an overreaction. I practice in a city in the Southeast that is not a port of entry and has no scheduled international passenger flights. Wuhan City, China and the threat of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) seemed very far away.
As the international tally of cases has grown, so have local concerns.
Hopefully, proactive public health measures to care for the few individuals currently infected in the United States and appropriately assessing individuals arriving from mainland China will prevent widespread circulation of 2019-nCoV here. If this is the case, most of us likely will never see a case of the virus. Still, there are important lessons to be learned from current preparedness efforts.
A travel history is important. Several years ago, during the height of concern over the spread of Ebola, the health care systems in which I practice asked everyone about travel to West Africa as soon as they approached the registration desk. In the intervening years, asking about a travel history largely was delegated to providers, and I suspect it largely was driven by patient presentation. Child presenting with 10 days of fever? The clinician likely took a travel history. Child presenting for runny nose, ear ache, or rash? Maybe not. With more consistent screening, we are learning how frequently our patients and their families do travel, and that is helping us expand our differential diagnosis.
We need to practice cough etiquette. Patients who endorse respiratory symptoms as part of 2019 n-CoV screening are handed a mask. Those who have traveled to China in the last 14 days are promptly escorted to an exam room. In truth, we should be following cough etiquette and offering all patients with respiratory symptoms a mask. Heightened awareness of this practice may help prevent the spread of much more common viruses such as influenza. Reliable processes to recognize and rapidly triage patients with an infectious illness are critically important in ambulatory settings, and now we have an opportunity to trial and improve these processes. No one wants a child with measles or chicken pox to sit in the waiting room!
Offices must stock personal protective equipment to comply with standard precautions. The recommended PPE when caring for a patient with 2019 n-CoV includes a gown, gloves, mask (n95 or PAPR if available), and eye protection, such as a face shield or goggles. An initial survey of PPE supplies locally revealed of shortage of PPE for eye protection in some offices. Eye protection should be readily available in pediatric and other primary care offices because it must be used as part of standard precautions during procedures likely to generate droplets of blood or body fluids. Examples of common procedures that require eye protection include swabbing the nasopharynx to obtain a specimen for respiratory virus testing or swabbing the throat to test for group A streptococcus.
We should use diagnostic testing judiciously. Over the last couple of weeks, we’ve had a couple of patients who wanted to be tested for 2019 n-CoV but did not meet person under investigation (PUI) criteria. Public health authorities, who must approve all 2019 n-CoV testing, said no. This is enforced diagnostic stewardship, but it is a reminder that, when a diagnostic test is performed in a person with a low likelihood of disease, there is a risk of a false-positive result. What if we applied this principle to tests we send routinely? We would send fewer urine cultures in patients with normal urinalyses and stop testing infants for Clostridioides difficile.
Frontline providers must partner with public health colleagues during outbreaks. Providers have been instructed to immediately notify local or state health departments when a patient is suspected of having 2019 n-CoV specifically because the PUI criteria are met. This notification was crucial in diagnosing the first cases of 2019 n-CoV in the United States. Nine of the first 11 U.S. cases were in travelers from Wuhan, and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, eight of these “were identified as a result of patients seeking clinical care for symptoms and clinicians connecting with the appropriate public health systems.” Locally, daytime and after hours phone numbers for the health department have been posted in offices across our health care system. The state health department is hosting well-attended webinars to provide updates and answer questions from clinicians. We may never have a case of 2019 n-CoV in Kentucky, but activities like these build relationships between providers and our colleagues in public health, strengthening infrastructure and the capacity to respond to future outbreaks. I suspect the same is true in many other communities.
Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.
In late January, signs were posted in all of the offices in our faculty medical practice building.
Combined with current worldwide health concerns and flu season, we are now asking all patients two questions:
1. Do you have a fever, cough or shortness of breath?
2. Have you traveled to China in the last 2 weeks, or have you had contact with someone who has and who now is sick?
Similar signs appeared in medical offices and EDs across the city. Truth be told, when the signs first went up, some thought it was an overreaction. I practice in a city in the Southeast that is not a port of entry and has no scheduled international passenger flights. Wuhan City, China and the threat of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) seemed very far away.
As the international tally of cases has grown, so have local concerns.
Hopefully, proactive public health measures to care for the few individuals currently infected in the United States and appropriately assessing individuals arriving from mainland China will prevent widespread circulation of 2019-nCoV here. If this is the case, most of us likely will never see a case of the virus. Still, there are important lessons to be learned from current preparedness efforts.
A travel history is important. Several years ago, during the height of concern over the spread of Ebola, the health care systems in which I practice asked everyone about travel to West Africa as soon as they approached the registration desk. In the intervening years, asking about a travel history largely was delegated to providers, and I suspect it largely was driven by patient presentation. Child presenting with 10 days of fever? The clinician likely took a travel history. Child presenting for runny nose, ear ache, or rash? Maybe not. With more consistent screening, we are learning how frequently our patients and their families do travel, and that is helping us expand our differential diagnosis.
We need to practice cough etiquette. Patients who endorse respiratory symptoms as part of 2019 n-CoV screening are handed a mask. Those who have traveled to China in the last 14 days are promptly escorted to an exam room. In truth, we should be following cough etiquette and offering all patients with respiratory symptoms a mask. Heightened awareness of this practice may help prevent the spread of much more common viruses such as influenza. Reliable processes to recognize and rapidly triage patients with an infectious illness are critically important in ambulatory settings, and now we have an opportunity to trial and improve these processes. No one wants a child with measles or chicken pox to sit in the waiting room!
Offices must stock personal protective equipment to comply with standard precautions. The recommended PPE when caring for a patient with 2019 n-CoV includes a gown, gloves, mask (n95 or PAPR if available), and eye protection, such as a face shield or goggles. An initial survey of PPE supplies locally revealed of shortage of PPE for eye protection in some offices. Eye protection should be readily available in pediatric and other primary care offices because it must be used as part of standard precautions during procedures likely to generate droplets of blood or body fluids. Examples of common procedures that require eye protection include swabbing the nasopharynx to obtain a specimen for respiratory virus testing or swabbing the throat to test for group A streptococcus.
We should use diagnostic testing judiciously. Over the last couple of weeks, we’ve had a couple of patients who wanted to be tested for 2019 n-CoV but did not meet person under investigation (PUI) criteria. Public health authorities, who must approve all 2019 n-CoV testing, said no. This is enforced diagnostic stewardship, but it is a reminder that, when a diagnostic test is performed in a person with a low likelihood of disease, there is a risk of a false-positive result. What if we applied this principle to tests we send routinely? We would send fewer urine cultures in patients with normal urinalyses and stop testing infants for Clostridioides difficile.
Frontline providers must partner with public health colleagues during outbreaks. Providers have been instructed to immediately notify local or state health departments when a patient is suspected of having 2019 n-CoV specifically because the PUI criteria are met. This notification was crucial in diagnosing the first cases of 2019 n-CoV in the United States. Nine of the first 11 U.S. cases were in travelers from Wuhan, and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, eight of these “were identified as a result of patients seeking clinical care for symptoms and clinicians connecting with the appropriate public health systems.” Locally, daytime and after hours phone numbers for the health department have been posted in offices across our health care system. The state health department is hosting well-attended webinars to provide updates and answer questions from clinicians. We may never have a case of 2019 n-CoV in Kentucky, but activities like these build relationships between providers and our colleagues in public health, strengthening infrastructure and the capacity to respond to future outbreaks. I suspect the same is true in many other communities.
Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.
AAN publishes guideline on the treatment of sleep problems in children with autism
The guideline was published online ahead of print Feb. 12 in Neurology.
“While up to 40% of children and teens in the general population will have sleep problems at some point during their childhood, such problems usually lessen with age,” lead author Ashura Williams Buckley, MD, director of the Sleep and Neurodevelopment Service at the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Md., said in a press release. “For children and teens with autism, sleep problems are more common and more likely to persist, resulting in poor health and poor quality of life. Some sleep problems may be directly related to autism, but others are not. Regardless, autism symptoms may make sleep problems worse.”
Few evidence-based treatments are available
Dr. Williams Buckley and colleagues developed the current guideline to evaluate which pharmacologic, behavioral, and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions improve bedtime resistance, sleep onset latency, sleep continuity, total sleep time, and daytime behavior in children and adolescents with ASD. The panel evaluated 900 abstracts of articles that had been included in systematic reviews, as well as 1,087 additional abstracts. One hundred thirty-nine articles were potentially relevant, 12 met criteria for data extraction, and eight were rated class III or higher and were included in the panel’s review.
The authors observed what they called a dearth of evidence-based treatments for sleep dysregulation in ASD. Evidence indicates that melatonin, with or without cognitive–behavioral therapy (CBT), improves several sleep outcomes, compared with placebo. “Evidence for other interventions is largely lacking,” wrote Dr. Williams Buckley and colleagues. They observed a lack of long-term safety data for melatonin in children, which they considered concerning, because melatonin affects the hypothalamic–gonadal axis and can potentially influence pubertal development.
Screening for comorbid conditions and concomitant medications
The guideline recommends that clinicians assess children with ASD and sleep disturbances for coexisting conditions and concomitant medications that could be contributing to these sleep disturbances. They should ensure that children receive appropriate treatment for coexisting conditions and adjust or discontinue potentially problematic medications appropriately, according to the guideline.
Furthermore, clinicians should counsel parents or guardians about behavioral strategies as a first-line treatment for improving sleep function. These strategies could be administered alone or with pharmacologic or neutraceutical approaches as needed, according to the authors. Suggested behavioral approaches include unmodified extinction (i.e., imposing a bedtime and ignoring a child’s protests), graduated extinction (i.e., ignoring protests for a specified period before responding), positive routines (i.e., establishing pre-bedtime calming rituals), and bedtime fading (i.e., putting a child to bed close to the time he or she begins to fall asleep).
If a child’s contributing coexisting conditions and medications have been addressed and behavioral strategies have not been helpful, clinicians should offer melatonin, according to the guideline. Because over-the-counter formulations contain variable concentrations of melatonin, clinicians should write a prescription for it or recommend high-purity pharmaceutical grade melatonin. The initial dose should be 1-3 mg/day at 60-30 minutes before bedtime. The dose can be titrated to 10 mg/day. Clinicians also should counsel children and their parents about potential adverse events of melatonin and the lack of long-term safety data, according to the guideline.
In addition, clinicians should advise children and parents that no evidence supports the routine use of weighted blankets or specialized mattress technology for improving sleep. Parents who ask about weighted blankets should be told that the reviewed trial reported no serious adverse events with this intervention, and that blankets could be a reasonable nonpharmacologic approach for some patients, according to the guideline.
Optimal outcome measures are undefined
Dr. Williams Buckley and colleagues also suggested areas for future research. Investigators have not yet defined optimal outcome measures (e.g., questionnaires, polysomnography, and actigraphy) that balance tolerability and accuracy, they wrote. Clinically important differences for most measures also have yet to be determined. Researchers should investigate whether long-term adverse events are associated with chronic melatonin use and study patients with ASD and comorbid mood disorders, wrote the authors. “Research tying the underlying neurobiology in early-life sleep disruption to behavior might help clinicians and researchers understand which treatments might work for which people with ASD,” they concluded.
The AAN supported the development of the guideline. Dr. Williams Buckley had no conflicts of interest. Six authors had conflicts of interest that the AAN deemed not significant enough to prevent their participation in the development of the guideline.
SOURCE: Williams Buckley A et al. Neurology. 2020;94:393-405. doi: 10.1212/WNL0000000000009033.
The guideline was published online ahead of print Feb. 12 in Neurology.
“While up to 40% of children and teens in the general population will have sleep problems at some point during their childhood, such problems usually lessen with age,” lead author Ashura Williams Buckley, MD, director of the Sleep and Neurodevelopment Service at the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Md., said in a press release. “For children and teens with autism, sleep problems are more common and more likely to persist, resulting in poor health and poor quality of life. Some sleep problems may be directly related to autism, but others are not. Regardless, autism symptoms may make sleep problems worse.”
Few evidence-based treatments are available
Dr. Williams Buckley and colleagues developed the current guideline to evaluate which pharmacologic, behavioral, and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions improve bedtime resistance, sleep onset latency, sleep continuity, total sleep time, and daytime behavior in children and adolescents with ASD. The panel evaluated 900 abstracts of articles that had been included in systematic reviews, as well as 1,087 additional abstracts. One hundred thirty-nine articles were potentially relevant, 12 met criteria for data extraction, and eight were rated class III or higher and were included in the panel’s review.
The authors observed what they called a dearth of evidence-based treatments for sleep dysregulation in ASD. Evidence indicates that melatonin, with or without cognitive–behavioral therapy (CBT), improves several sleep outcomes, compared with placebo. “Evidence for other interventions is largely lacking,” wrote Dr. Williams Buckley and colleagues. They observed a lack of long-term safety data for melatonin in children, which they considered concerning, because melatonin affects the hypothalamic–gonadal axis and can potentially influence pubertal development.
Screening for comorbid conditions and concomitant medications
The guideline recommends that clinicians assess children with ASD and sleep disturbances for coexisting conditions and concomitant medications that could be contributing to these sleep disturbances. They should ensure that children receive appropriate treatment for coexisting conditions and adjust or discontinue potentially problematic medications appropriately, according to the guideline.
Furthermore, clinicians should counsel parents or guardians about behavioral strategies as a first-line treatment for improving sleep function. These strategies could be administered alone or with pharmacologic or neutraceutical approaches as needed, according to the authors. Suggested behavioral approaches include unmodified extinction (i.e., imposing a bedtime and ignoring a child’s protests), graduated extinction (i.e., ignoring protests for a specified period before responding), positive routines (i.e., establishing pre-bedtime calming rituals), and bedtime fading (i.e., putting a child to bed close to the time he or she begins to fall asleep).
If a child’s contributing coexisting conditions and medications have been addressed and behavioral strategies have not been helpful, clinicians should offer melatonin, according to the guideline. Because over-the-counter formulations contain variable concentrations of melatonin, clinicians should write a prescription for it or recommend high-purity pharmaceutical grade melatonin. The initial dose should be 1-3 mg/day at 60-30 minutes before bedtime. The dose can be titrated to 10 mg/day. Clinicians also should counsel children and their parents about potential adverse events of melatonin and the lack of long-term safety data, according to the guideline.
In addition, clinicians should advise children and parents that no evidence supports the routine use of weighted blankets or specialized mattress technology for improving sleep. Parents who ask about weighted blankets should be told that the reviewed trial reported no serious adverse events with this intervention, and that blankets could be a reasonable nonpharmacologic approach for some patients, according to the guideline.
Optimal outcome measures are undefined
Dr. Williams Buckley and colleagues also suggested areas for future research. Investigators have not yet defined optimal outcome measures (e.g., questionnaires, polysomnography, and actigraphy) that balance tolerability and accuracy, they wrote. Clinically important differences for most measures also have yet to be determined. Researchers should investigate whether long-term adverse events are associated with chronic melatonin use and study patients with ASD and comorbid mood disorders, wrote the authors. “Research tying the underlying neurobiology in early-life sleep disruption to behavior might help clinicians and researchers understand which treatments might work for which people with ASD,” they concluded.
The AAN supported the development of the guideline. Dr. Williams Buckley had no conflicts of interest. Six authors had conflicts of interest that the AAN deemed not significant enough to prevent their participation in the development of the guideline.
SOURCE: Williams Buckley A et al. Neurology. 2020;94:393-405. doi: 10.1212/WNL0000000000009033.
The guideline was published online ahead of print Feb. 12 in Neurology.
“While up to 40% of children and teens in the general population will have sleep problems at some point during their childhood, such problems usually lessen with age,” lead author Ashura Williams Buckley, MD, director of the Sleep and Neurodevelopment Service at the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Md., said in a press release. “For children and teens with autism, sleep problems are more common and more likely to persist, resulting in poor health and poor quality of life. Some sleep problems may be directly related to autism, but others are not. Regardless, autism symptoms may make sleep problems worse.”
Few evidence-based treatments are available
Dr. Williams Buckley and colleagues developed the current guideline to evaluate which pharmacologic, behavioral, and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions improve bedtime resistance, sleep onset latency, sleep continuity, total sleep time, and daytime behavior in children and adolescents with ASD. The panel evaluated 900 abstracts of articles that had been included in systematic reviews, as well as 1,087 additional abstracts. One hundred thirty-nine articles were potentially relevant, 12 met criteria for data extraction, and eight were rated class III or higher and were included in the panel’s review.
The authors observed what they called a dearth of evidence-based treatments for sleep dysregulation in ASD. Evidence indicates that melatonin, with or without cognitive–behavioral therapy (CBT), improves several sleep outcomes, compared with placebo. “Evidence for other interventions is largely lacking,” wrote Dr. Williams Buckley and colleagues. They observed a lack of long-term safety data for melatonin in children, which they considered concerning, because melatonin affects the hypothalamic–gonadal axis and can potentially influence pubertal development.
Screening for comorbid conditions and concomitant medications
The guideline recommends that clinicians assess children with ASD and sleep disturbances for coexisting conditions and concomitant medications that could be contributing to these sleep disturbances. They should ensure that children receive appropriate treatment for coexisting conditions and adjust or discontinue potentially problematic medications appropriately, according to the guideline.
Furthermore, clinicians should counsel parents or guardians about behavioral strategies as a first-line treatment for improving sleep function. These strategies could be administered alone or with pharmacologic or neutraceutical approaches as needed, according to the authors. Suggested behavioral approaches include unmodified extinction (i.e., imposing a bedtime and ignoring a child’s protests), graduated extinction (i.e., ignoring protests for a specified period before responding), positive routines (i.e., establishing pre-bedtime calming rituals), and bedtime fading (i.e., putting a child to bed close to the time he or she begins to fall asleep).
If a child’s contributing coexisting conditions and medications have been addressed and behavioral strategies have not been helpful, clinicians should offer melatonin, according to the guideline. Because over-the-counter formulations contain variable concentrations of melatonin, clinicians should write a prescription for it or recommend high-purity pharmaceutical grade melatonin. The initial dose should be 1-3 mg/day at 60-30 minutes before bedtime. The dose can be titrated to 10 mg/day. Clinicians also should counsel children and their parents about potential adverse events of melatonin and the lack of long-term safety data, according to the guideline.
In addition, clinicians should advise children and parents that no evidence supports the routine use of weighted blankets or specialized mattress technology for improving sleep. Parents who ask about weighted blankets should be told that the reviewed trial reported no serious adverse events with this intervention, and that blankets could be a reasonable nonpharmacologic approach for some patients, according to the guideline.
Optimal outcome measures are undefined
Dr. Williams Buckley and colleagues also suggested areas for future research. Investigators have not yet defined optimal outcome measures (e.g., questionnaires, polysomnography, and actigraphy) that balance tolerability and accuracy, they wrote. Clinically important differences for most measures also have yet to be determined. Researchers should investigate whether long-term adverse events are associated with chronic melatonin use and study patients with ASD and comorbid mood disorders, wrote the authors. “Research tying the underlying neurobiology in early-life sleep disruption to behavior might help clinicians and researchers understand which treatments might work for which people with ASD,” they concluded.
The AAN supported the development of the guideline. Dr. Williams Buckley had no conflicts of interest. Six authors had conflicts of interest that the AAN deemed not significant enough to prevent their participation in the development of the guideline.
SOURCE: Williams Buckley A et al. Neurology. 2020;94:393-405. doi: 10.1212/WNL0000000000009033.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Key clinical point: The AAN has published a guideline on the treatment of sleep problems in children with autism.
Major finding: The guideline recommends behavioral strategies as a first-line treatment.
Study details: A review of 1,987 peer-reviewed studies.
Disclosures: The AAN funded the development of the guideline. The first author had no conflicts of interest, and the other authors had no significant conflicts.
Source: Williams Buckley A et al. Neurology. 2020;94:393-405. doi: 10.1212/WNL0000000000009033.
Trump seeks to cut NIH, CDC budgets, some Medicare spending
The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.
In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.
But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.
For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.
Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.
Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.
Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.
The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.
Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.
The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82).
Budget ‘would thwart’ progress
A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.
“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.
David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.
“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.
Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.
In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.
Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.
‘Untenable cuts’
AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”
This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.
“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.
The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.
“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”
Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.
“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.
In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.
“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.
He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.
Medical malpractice overhaul
The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.
The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”
Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.
These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.
Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.
Site-neutral policy
A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.
In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”
Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.
“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.
HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.
The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year.
Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.
Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.
In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.
But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.
For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.
Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.
Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.
Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.
The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.
Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.
The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82).
Budget ‘would thwart’ progress
A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.
“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.
David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.
“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.
Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.
In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.
Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.
‘Untenable cuts’
AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”
This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.
“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.
The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.
“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”
Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.
“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.
In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.
“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.
He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.
Medical malpractice overhaul
The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.
The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”
Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.
These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.
Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.
Site-neutral policy
A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.
In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”
Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.
“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.
HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.
The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year.
Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.
Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.
In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.
But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.
For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.
Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.
Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.
Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.
The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.
Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.
The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82).
Budget ‘would thwart’ progress
A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.
“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.
David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.
“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.
Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.
In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.
Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.
‘Untenable cuts’
AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”
This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.
“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.
The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.
“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”
Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.
“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.
In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.
“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.
He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.
Medical malpractice overhaul
The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.
The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”
Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.
These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.
Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.
Site-neutral policy
A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.
In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”
Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.
“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.
HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.
The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year.
Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.
Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Acne treatment may vary based on race, gender, insurance
based on findings from a retrospective, cohort study of 29,928 individuals with acne.
“Our findings suggest the presence of racial/ethnic, sex, and insurance-based disparities in health care use and treatment for acne and raise particular concern for undertreatment among racial/ethnic minority and female patients,” John S. Barbieri, MD, a dermatology research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote in a study published in JAMA Dermatology.
Data from previous studies have suggested racial disparities in the management of several dermatologic conditions, including atopic dermatitis and psoriasis, but associations between social demographics and prescribing patterns have not been well studied for acne treatment, the authors noted.
For the current study, the researchers used deidentified data from the Optum electronic health record from Jan. 1, 2007 to June 30, 2017. In all, 29,928 patients aged 15-35 years and who were being treated for acne were included in the study. Of that total, 64% were women, 8% were non-Hispanic black and 68% were white, with the remaining patients grouped as non-Hispanic Asian, Hispanic, or other.
Non-Hispanic black patients were significantly more likely to be seen by a dermatologist, compared with non-Hispanic white patients, who were designated as the reference (odds ratio, 1.20). However, the black patients were less likely to receive prescriptions for any acne medication (incidence rate ratio, 0.89).
Non-Hispanic black patients were more likely than non-Hispanic white patients to be prescribed topical retinoids or topical antibiotics (OR, 1.25 and 1.35, respectively). They were also were less likely than their white counterparts to be prescribed oral antibiotics, spironolactone, and isotretinoin (OR, 0.80, 0.68, and 0.39, respectively).
Overall, men were more than twice as likely as women to receive prescriptions for isotretinoin (OR, 2.44). They were also more likely to receive prescriptions for the other treatments, but the differences were not as high as those for isotretinoin.
In addition, patients with Medicaid insurance were significantly less likely than those with commercial insurance (the reference) to see a dermatologist (OR, 0.46). Medicaid patients also were less likely to be prescribed topical retinoids, oral antibiotics, spironolactone, or isotretinoin (OR, 0.82, 0.87, 0.50, and 0.43, respectively).
The study findings were limited by several factors, among them, the use of automated pharmacy data without confirmation that patients had picked up the medications they had been prescribed, the researchers said. The study also lacked data on acne severity, clinical outcomes, and the use of over-the-counter acne treatments.
“Further study is needed to confirm our findings, provide understanding of the reasons for these potential disparities, and develop strategies to ensure equitable care for patients with acne,” the researchers concluded.
The study was supported in part by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health, and by a Pfizer Fellowship in Dermatology Patient Oriented Research grant to the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Barbieri had no financial conflicts to disclose. One of the study coauthors disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Novartis.
SOURCE: Barbieri JS et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.4818.
based on findings from a retrospective, cohort study of 29,928 individuals with acne.
“Our findings suggest the presence of racial/ethnic, sex, and insurance-based disparities in health care use and treatment for acne and raise particular concern for undertreatment among racial/ethnic minority and female patients,” John S. Barbieri, MD, a dermatology research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote in a study published in JAMA Dermatology.
Data from previous studies have suggested racial disparities in the management of several dermatologic conditions, including atopic dermatitis and psoriasis, but associations between social demographics and prescribing patterns have not been well studied for acne treatment, the authors noted.
For the current study, the researchers used deidentified data from the Optum electronic health record from Jan. 1, 2007 to June 30, 2017. In all, 29,928 patients aged 15-35 years and who were being treated for acne were included in the study. Of that total, 64% were women, 8% were non-Hispanic black and 68% were white, with the remaining patients grouped as non-Hispanic Asian, Hispanic, or other.
Non-Hispanic black patients were significantly more likely to be seen by a dermatologist, compared with non-Hispanic white patients, who were designated as the reference (odds ratio, 1.20). However, the black patients were less likely to receive prescriptions for any acne medication (incidence rate ratio, 0.89).
Non-Hispanic black patients were more likely than non-Hispanic white patients to be prescribed topical retinoids or topical antibiotics (OR, 1.25 and 1.35, respectively). They were also were less likely than their white counterparts to be prescribed oral antibiotics, spironolactone, and isotretinoin (OR, 0.80, 0.68, and 0.39, respectively).
Overall, men were more than twice as likely as women to receive prescriptions for isotretinoin (OR, 2.44). They were also more likely to receive prescriptions for the other treatments, but the differences were not as high as those for isotretinoin.
In addition, patients with Medicaid insurance were significantly less likely than those with commercial insurance (the reference) to see a dermatologist (OR, 0.46). Medicaid patients also were less likely to be prescribed topical retinoids, oral antibiotics, spironolactone, or isotretinoin (OR, 0.82, 0.87, 0.50, and 0.43, respectively).
The study findings were limited by several factors, among them, the use of automated pharmacy data without confirmation that patients had picked up the medications they had been prescribed, the researchers said. The study also lacked data on acne severity, clinical outcomes, and the use of over-the-counter acne treatments.
“Further study is needed to confirm our findings, provide understanding of the reasons for these potential disparities, and develop strategies to ensure equitable care for patients with acne,” the researchers concluded.
The study was supported in part by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health, and by a Pfizer Fellowship in Dermatology Patient Oriented Research grant to the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Barbieri had no financial conflicts to disclose. One of the study coauthors disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Novartis.
SOURCE: Barbieri JS et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.4818.
based on findings from a retrospective, cohort study of 29,928 individuals with acne.
“Our findings suggest the presence of racial/ethnic, sex, and insurance-based disparities in health care use and treatment for acne and raise particular concern for undertreatment among racial/ethnic minority and female patients,” John S. Barbieri, MD, a dermatology research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote in a study published in JAMA Dermatology.
Data from previous studies have suggested racial disparities in the management of several dermatologic conditions, including atopic dermatitis and psoriasis, but associations between social demographics and prescribing patterns have not been well studied for acne treatment, the authors noted.
For the current study, the researchers used deidentified data from the Optum electronic health record from Jan. 1, 2007 to June 30, 2017. In all, 29,928 patients aged 15-35 years and who were being treated for acne were included in the study. Of that total, 64% were women, 8% were non-Hispanic black and 68% were white, with the remaining patients grouped as non-Hispanic Asian, Hispanic, or other.
Non-Hispanic black patients were significantly more likely to be seen by a dermatologist, compared with non-Hispanic white patients, who were designated as the reference (odds ratio, 1.20). However, the black patients were less likely to receive prescriptions for any acne medication (incidence rate ratio, 0.89).
Non-Hispanic black patients were more likely than non-Hispanic white patients to be prescribed topical retinoids or topical antibiotics (OR, 1.25 and 1.35, respectively). They were also were less likely than their white counterparts to be prescribed oral antibiotics, spironolactone, and isotretinoin (OR, 0.80, 0.68, and 0.39, respectively).
Overall, men were more than twice as likely as women to receive prescriptions for isotretinoin (OR, 2.44). They were also more likely to receive prescriptions for the other treatments, but the differences were not as high as those for isotretinoin.
In addition, patients with Medicaid insurance were significantly less likely than those with commercial insurance (the reference) to see a dermatologist (OR, 0.46). Medicaid patients also were less likely to be prescribed topical retinoids, oral antibiotics, spironolactone, or isotretinoin (OR, 0.82, 0.87, 0.50, and 0.43, respectively).
The study findings were limited by several factors, among them, the use of automated pharmacy data without confirmation that patients had picked up the medications they had been prescribed, the researchers said. The study also lacked data on acne severity, clinical outcomes, and the use of over-the-counter acne treatments.
“Further study is needed to confirm our findings, provide understanding of the reasons for these potential disparities, and develop strategies to ensure equitable care for patients with acne,” the researchers concluded.
The study was supported in part by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health, and by a Pfizer Fellowship in Dermatology Patient Oriented Research grant to the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Barbieri had no financial conflicts to disclose. One of the study coauthors disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Novartis.
SOURCE: Barbieri JS et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.4818.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
Be alert for embezzlement
With myriad complex, high-tech problems facing private practice in this modern era, I am periodically reminded by long-time readers to revisit some of the low-tech issues that will always require our attention.
Few are lower tech (in most cases) and more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.
Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:
- Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: The person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.
- Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.
- Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Last year, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.
- Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.” Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.
- Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.
- Consider computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and there should be safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.
- Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information web sites. My columns on hiring are available on the MDedge Dermatology website.
- Look for “red flags.” Examples include employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.
- Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and provide assurance of some measure of recovery if your safeguards fail. Also, just knowing that your staff is bonded will scare off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
With myriad complex, high-tech problems facing private practice in this modern era, I am periodically reminded by long-time readers to revisit some of the low-tech issues that will always require our attention.
Few are lower tech (in most cases) and more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.
Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:
- Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: The person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.
- Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.
- Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Last year, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.
- Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.” Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.
- Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.
- Consider computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and there should be safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.
- Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information web sites. My columns on hiring are available on the MDedge Dermatology website.
- Look for “red flags.” Examples include employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.
- Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and provide assurance of some measure of recovery if your safeguards fail. Also, just knowing that your staff is bonded will scare off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
With myriad complex, high-tech problems facing private practice in this modern era, I am periodically reminded by long-time readers to revisit some of the low-tech issues that will always require our attention.
Few are lower tech (in most cases) and more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.
Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:
- Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: The person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.
- Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.
- Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Last year, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.
- Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.” Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.
- Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.
- Consider computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and there should be safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.
- Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information web sites. My columns on hiring are available on the MDedge Dermatology website.
- Look for “red flags.” Examples include employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.
- Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and provide assurance of some measure of recovery if your safeguards fail. Also, just knowing that your staff is bonded will scare off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
CDC confirms 13th case of coronavirus in U.S.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced the number of confirmed cases of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in the United States has reached 13.
The latest case, announced Feb. 11, 2020, by the CDC, was in a person in California who was previously under federal quarantine because the patient had traveled to Wuhan, China.
The CDC is currently looking into who the patient may have come in contact with to understand the potential for further spread of the coronavirus.
“The contact investigation is ongoing,” CDC principal deputy director Anne Schuchat, MD, said during a Feb. 11 press conference to provide an update on coronavirus containment activities being taken by the CDC.
Dr. Schuchat also addressed issues related to the laboratory test, as the patient in California was initially thought to be negative for the coronavirus.
“With other cases around the country that we are evaluating, we have been doing serial tests to understand whether they are still infectious” and to gather other information about how results change over time, Dr. Schuchat said.
She noted that the CDC does not “have as much information as we would like on the severity of the virus,” noting that there are many cases in China with severe reactions, while the 13 cases in the United States represent a much more mild reaction to the virus so far.
With the latest case in California, she noted that there was “probably a mix-up and the original test wasn’t negative,” although she did not elaborate on what the nature of the mix-up was, stating that was all the information that she had.
In general, Dr. Schuchat touted the actions taken by the CDC and the federal government focused primarily on containing the spread of the virus in the United States, including the implementation of travel advisories, quarantining passengers returning from China, as well as the new test kits that are being distributed by the agency across the nation and around the world. She also mentioned CDC staff are being deployed around the world to monitor the spreading of the disease and highlighted the outreach efforts to keep the public informed.
Dr. Schuchat highlighted the fact that, of the 13 cases in the United States, 11 were with patients that were in Wuhan, and only 2 were because of close contact with a patient, something that she attributed to the actions being taken.
She also noted that cases in the United States have not been as severe as they have been in China, where deaths have been attributed to the coronavirus outbreak. She added that there have been only two deaths outside of mainland China attributed to the coronavirus.
“Some of the steps the CDC has taken have really put us in better shape should widespread transmission occur in the United States,” she said.
Dr. Schuchat also highlighted that the first charter flight of people quarantined after returning from Wuhan have reached the 14-day milestone and should be on their way home beginning today.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced the number of confirmed cases of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in the United States has reached 13.
The latest case, announced Feb. 11, 2020, by the CDC, was in a person in California who was previously under federal quarantine because the patient had traveled to Wuhan, China.
The CDC is currently looking into who the patient may have come in contact with to understand the potential for further spread of the coronavirus.
“The contact investigation is ongoing,” CDC principal deputy director Anne Schuchat, MD, said during a Feb. 11 press conference to provide an update on coronavirus containment activities being taken by the CDC.
Dr. Schuchat also addressed issues related to the laboratory test, as the patient in California was initially thought to be negative for the coronavirus.
“With other cases around the country that we are evaluating, we have been doing serial tests to understand whether they are still infectious” and to gather other information about how results change over time, Dr. Schuchat said.
She noted that the CDC does not “have as much information as we would like on the severity of the virus,” noting that there are many cases in China with severe reactions, while the 13 cases in the United States represent a much more mild reaction to the virus so far.
With the latest case in California, she noted that there was “probably a mix-up and the original test wasn’t negative,” although she did not elaborate on what the nature of the mix-up was, stating that was all the information that she had.
In general, Dr. Schuchat touted the actions taken by the CDC and the federal government focused primarily on containing the spread of the virus in the United States, including the implementation of travel advisories, quarantining passengers returning from China, as well as the new test kits that are being distributed by the agency across the nation and around the world. She also mentioned CDC staff are being deployed around the world to monitor the spreading of the disease and highlighted the outreach efforts to keep the public informed.
Dr. Schuchat highlighted the fact that, of the 13 cases in the United States, 11 were with patients that were in Wuhan, and only 2 were because of close contact with a patient, something that she attributed to the actions being taken.
She also noted that cases in the United States have not been as severe as they have been in China, where deaths have been attributed to the coronavirus outbreak. She added that there have been only two deaths outside of mainland China attributed to the coronavirus.
“Some of the steps the CDC has taken have really put us in better shape should widespread transmission occur in the United States,” she said.
Dr. Schuchat also highlighted that the first charter flight of people quarantined after returning from Wuhan have reached the 14-day milestone and should be on their way home beginning today.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced the number of confirmed cases of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in the United States has reached 13.
The latest case, announced Feb. 11, 2020, by the CDC, was in a person in California who was previously under federal quarantine because the patient had traveled to Wuhan, China.
The CDC is currently looking into who the patient may have come in contact with to understand the potential for further spread of the coronavirus.
“The contact investigation is ongoing,” CDC principal deputy director Anne Schuchat, MD, said during a Feb. 11 press conference to provide an update on coronavirus containment activities being taken by the CDC.
Dr. Schuchat also addressed issues related to the laboratory test, as the patient in California was initially thought to be negative for the coronavirus.
“With other cases around the country that we are evaluating, we have been doing serial tests to understand whether they are still infectious” and to gather other information about how results change over time, Dr. Schuchat said.
She noted that the CDC does not “have as much information as we would like on the severity of the virus,” noting that there are many cases in China with severe reactions, while the 13 cases in the United States represent a much more mild reaction to the virus so far.
With the latest case in California, she noted that there was “probably a mix-up and the original test wasn’t negative,” although she did not elaborate on what the nature of the mix-up was, stating that was all the information that she had.
In general, Dr. Schuchat touted the actions taken by the CDC and the federal government focused primarily on containing the spread of the virus in the United States, including the implementation of travel advisories, quarantining passengers returning from China, as well as the new test kits that are being distributed by the agency across the nation and around the world. She also mentioned CDC staff are being deployed around the world to monitor the spreading of the disease and highlighted the outreach efforts to keep the public informed.
Dr. Schuchat highlighted the fact that, of the 13 cases in the United States, 11 were with patients that were in Wuhan, and only 2 were because of close contact with a patient, something that she attributed to the actions being taken.
She also noted that cases in the United States have not been as severe as they have been in China, where deaths have been attributed to the coronavirus outbreak. She added that there have been only two deaths outside of mainland China attributed to the coronavirus.
“Some of the steps the CDC has taken have really put us in better shape should widespread transmission occur in the United States,” she said.
Dr. Schuchat also highlighted that the first charter flight of people quarantined after returning from Wuhan have reached the 14-day milestone and should be on their way home beginning today.
Weight bias against teens: Understand it and combat it
NEW ORLEANS – and support your patients regardless of weight.
Rebecca Puhl, PhD, a deputy director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at the University of Connecticut, Hartford, said that weight-based discrimination can occur whatever a person’s size or body shape, but it’s most often targeted at youth who are overweight or obese.
These children and teens commonly face teasing, harassment, cyberbullying, physical aggression, and social bullying from peers, coaches, teachers, and even parents, Dr. Puhl told attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Common beliefs about overweight people – that they have little self discipline or poor eating and activity habits – only perpetuate stereotypes, she said. Common stereotypes are that people with obesity are noncompliant, lazy, sloppy, unsuccessful, unintelligent, dishonest, and awkward.
And health professionals of every type have been found to harbor these biases. In one study of more than 4,000 first-year medical students, well over half the respondents revealed explicit (74%) and implicit (67%) weight bias (Obesity. 2014 Apr;22[4]:1201-8). The study also found that explicit weight bias was stronger than explicit bias against blacks, Hispanics, LGBTQ people, and poor people.
Know the effects of weight stigma
Far from a minor issue, the discrimination that begins in childhood against those who are overweight can have a long-lasting impact on their future prospects and mental health. Being overweight is overwhelmingly cited as the most common reason for bullying (Pediatr Obes. 2016 Aug;11[4]:241-50). Dr. Puhl described to attendees how weight bias shifts throughout a lifetime, beginning as early as preschool. In childhood, the stereotypes about being overweight worsen, and the teasing and bullying increase. By adolescence, this treatment affects teens’ psychological, social, and physical well-being. It then translates in adulthood into reduced opportunities in employment and education, and poorer access and treatment in health care.
The mental distress caused by weight bullying often takes the form of depression, anxiety, and substance use, Dr. Puhl said, and children’s academic success can be hampered by bullying about their weight. One study found a higher risk of poor grades and school avoidance with each additional teasing incident (J Youth Adolesc. 2012 Jan;41[1]:27-40).
Weight stigma also can contribute to more weight gain, obesity, and lower physical activity levels. Maladaptive eating behaviors can result from weight stigmatization as well: binge eating, emotional eating, increased consumption in general, and other eating disorders. Severe binge eating is 80% more likely among teens who are bullied about their weight, Dr. Puhl said, and the risk increases with increased frequency and types of bullying.
Children who are teased about their weight often become less willing to engage in physical activity, she noted. They may skip gym class, feel less competent about physical activity, and end up enjoying sports participation less.
Further, sexual- and gender-minority youth report high rates of weight-related teasing from friends and family regardless of their body mass index (BMI) percentile, Dr. Puhl emphasized. Researchers have found bullying about weight in this population linked to dieting, difficulty sleeping, high stress levels, binge drinking, smoking, and marijuana use.
Know how to combat weight bias
Dr. Puhl described strategies for reducing weight bias based on clinical practice recommendations in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statement entitled “Stigma Experienced by Children and Adolescents With Obesity” (Pediatrics. 2017 Dec;140[6]:e20173034).
Be aware. Consider how personal assumptions and attitudes about weight can affect your body language, tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, eye contact (or lack thereof), and spatial distance from the patient.
Recognizing the biological, genetic, and environmental causes of obesity can reduce stigma and improve understanding of the complexity of obesity etiology. It’s also important that you help parents understand this complexity and the negative impact of weight stigma.
Consider language and word choice. “Carefully consider language that might unintentionally communicate bias, blame, or negative judgment,” Dr. Puhl told attendees. “Use language that is supportive and empowering.”
Terms such as “unhealthy weight” and “high BMI” are less stigmatizing than “fat” and “morbidly obese” to parents, she said, and research has found nearly a quarter of parents would avoid future doctor appointments if their child’s doctor used stigmatizing terms to discuss weight (Pediatrics. 2011 Oct;128[4]:e786-93).
Teens themselves may have diverse preferences for the language used. Start by asking: “Could we talk about your weight today?” and then follow up by directly asking, “what words would you feel most comfortable with as we talk about your weight?”
Person-first language – such as “person with obesity” instead of “obese person” also is important to reducing stigma, she said.
It’s normal for you to feel uneasy about bringing up weight with patients, so Dr. Puhl recommended you practice dialogue out loud.
“Acknowledge your strengths,” she said. “You already have the skills and experience of engaging in difficult conversations with patients and families on a range of other health issues,” so apply that in this context as well.
Screen for negative experiences that could indicate weight-based bullying. These could include teasing and bullying, low self-esteem, poor school performance, depression, and anxiety.
“Remember that weight-based victimization can occur at diverse body sizes, not just in youth with obesity,” Dr. Puhl said. If you discover your patient is experiencing weight-related bullying, determine whether they have a support system in place and whether a mental health referral is appropriate. Provide or refer for behavior change counseling with motivational interviewing and patient-centered, empathic approaches. Parents should be aware of the issue and should contact the child’s teachers and school administration to help address it.
But before you do that, keep in mind that it’s not just peers doing the bullying. According to a study of teens with obesity enrolled in a national weight-loss camp, 37% of teen participants in 2012 said that their parents bully them (Pediatrics. 2013 Jan;131[1]:e1-9).
You should assess whether family interactions or the parents’ own history with weight is involved. If parents make disparaging comments about their child’s weight, “use this as an opportunity to model appropriate language and educate parents about weight bias,” Dr. Puhl said.
It’s also important to realize that parents themselves often are frustrated, so critical comments about their language or approach can backfire, she warned. Instead, help parents understand how to create a home setting that encourages healthy food choices, praises children for healthy decision making, and models positive health behaviors. It is key for them to focus on improving their children’s health behaviors rather than focusing on weight.
And before you contact the school, remember teachers also are common perpetrators of weight stigma, Dr. Puhl noted. She gave as an example a study in which investigators assessed 133 teachers’ perceptions of middle or high school students’ abilities based on photos that had been digitally altered to show each girl both as average weight or as overweight. Each photo was associated with an essay specifically chosen because it was neither particularly good nor bad (Brit J Educ Psychol. 2019 Oct 26. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12322). The teachers judged the essays believed to be submitted by overweight girls to be “similar in structural quality,” but they gave the overweight girls lower grades than the average-weight girls. They also indicated that they considered the overweight girls “put forth more effort, needed more remedial assistance, and had lower overall grades in school.” The teachers also rated other teachers’ weight bias to be at a low level, and their own weight bias to be “significantly lower” than the others.
Assess your clinical environment. Be aware of your clinical environment and whether it meets the needs of youth with diverse body sizes. That includes having a range of sturdy armless seating options and adequately sized doorways, hallways, and restrooms. You also should have beds, wheelchairs, and exam tables with adequate weight capacity. Also check that you have supplies, such as robes or blood pressure cuffs, on hand for a variety of body sizes.
NEW ORLEANS – and support your patients regardless of weight.
Rebecca Puhl, PhD, a deputy director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at the University of Connecticut, Hartford, said that weight-based discrimination can occur whatever a person’s size or body shape, but it’s most often targeted at youth who are overweight or obese.
These children and teens commonly face teasing, harassment, cyberbullying, physical aggression, and social bullying from peers, coaches, teachers, and even parents, Dr. Puhl told attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Common beliefs about overweight people – that they have little self discipline or poor eating and activity habits – only perpetuate stereotypes, she said. Common stereotypes are that people with obesity are noncompliant, lazy, sloppy, unsuccessful, unintelligent, dishonest, and awkward.
And health professionals of every type have been found to harbor these biases. In one study of more than 4,000 first-year medical students, well over half the respondents revealed explicit (74%) and implicit (67%) weight bias (Obesity. 2014 Apr;22[4]:1201-8). The study also found that explicit weight bias was stronger than explicit bias against blacks, Hispanics, LGBTQ people, and poor people.
Know the effects of weight stigma
Far from a minor issue, the discrimination that begins in childhood against those who are overweight can have a long-lasting impact on their future prospects and mental health. Being overweight is overwhelmingly cited as the most common reason for bullying (Pediatr Obes. 2016 Aug;11[4]:241-50). Dr. Puhl described to attendees how weight bias shifts throughout a lifetime, beginning as early as preschool. In childhood, the stereotypes about being overweight worsen, and the teasing and bullying increase. By adolescence, this treatment affects teens’ psychological, social, and physical well-being. It then translates in adulthood into reduced opportunities in employment and education, and poorer access and treatment in health care.
The mental distress caused by weight bullying often takes the form of depression, anxiety, and substance use, Dr. Puhl said, and children’s academic success can be hampered by bullying about their weight. One study found a higher risk of poor grades and school avoidance with each additional teasing incident (J Youth Adolesc. 2012 Jan;41[1]:27-40).
Weight stigma also can contribute to more weight gain, obesity, and lower physical activity levels. Maladaptive eating behaviors can result from weight stigmatization as well: binge eating, emotional eating, increased consumption in general, and other eating disorders. Severe binge eating is 80% more likely among teens who are bullied about their weight, Dr. Puhl said, and the risk increases with increased frequency and types of bullying.
Children who are teased about their weight often become less willing to engage in physical activity, she noted. They may skip gym class, feel less competent about physical activity, and end up enjoying sports participation less.
Further, sexual- and gender-minority youth report high rates of weight-related teasing from friends and family regardless of their body mass index (BMI) percentile, Dr. Puhl emphasized. Researchers have found bullying about weight in this population linked to dieting, difficulty sleeping, high stress levels, binge drinking, smoking, and marijuana use.
Know how to combat weight bias
Dr. Puhl described strategies for reducing weight bias based on clinical practice recommendations in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statement entitled “Stigma Experienced by Children and Adolescents With Obesity” (Pediatrics. 2017 Dec;140[6]:e20173034).
Be aware. Consider how personal assumptions and attitudes about weight can affect your body language, tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, eye contact (or lack thereof), and spatial distance from the patient.
Recognizing the biological, genetic, and environmental causes of obesity can reduce stigma and improve understanding of the complexity of obesity etiology. It’s also important that you help parents understand this complexity and the negative impact of weight stigma.
Consider language and word choice. “Carefully consider language that might unintentionally communicate bias, blame, or negative judgment,” Dr. Puhl told attendees. “Use language that is supportive and empowering.”
Terms such as “unhealthy weight” and “high BMI” are less stigmatizing than “fat” and “morbidly obese” to parents, she said, and research has found nearly a quarter of parents would avoid future doctor appointments if their child’s doctor used stigmatizing terms to discuss weight (Pediatrics. 2011 Oct;128[4]:e786-93).
Teens themselves may have diverse preferences for the language used. Start by asking: “Could we talk about your weight today?” and then follow up by directly asking, “what words would you feel most comfortable with as we talk about your weight?”
Person-first language – such as “person with obesity” instead of “obese person” also is important to reducing stigma, she said.
It’s normal for you to feel uneasy about bringing up weight with patients, so Dr. Puhl recommended you practice dialogue out loud.
“Acknowledge your strengths,” she said. “You already have the skills and experience of engaging in difficult conversations with patients and families on a range of other health issues,” so apply that in this context as well.
Screen for negative experiences that could indicate weight-based bullying. These could include teasing and bullying, low self-esteem, poor school performance, depression, and anxiety.
“Remember that weight-based victimization can occur at diverse body sizes, not just in youth with obesity,” Dr. Puhl said. If you discover your patient is experiencing weight-related bullying, determine whether they have a support system in place and whether a mental health referral is appropriate. Provide or refer for behavior change counseling with motivational interviewing and patient-centered, empathic approaches. Parents should be aware of the issue and should contact the child’s teachers and school administration to help address it.
But before you do that, keep in mind that it’s not just peers doing the bullying. According to a study of teens with obesity enrolled in a national weight-loss camp, 37% of teen participants in 2012 said that their parents bully them (Pediatrics. 2013 Jan;131[1]:e1-9).
You should assess whether family interactions or the parents’ own history with weight is involved. If parents make disparaging comments about their child’s weight, “use this as an opportunity to model appropriate language and educate parents about weight bias,” Dr. Puhl said.
It’s also important to realize that parents themselves often are frustrated, so critical comments about their language or approach can backfire, she warned. Instead, help parents understand how to create a home setting that encourages healthy food choices, praises children for healthy decision making, and models positive health behaviors. It is key for them to focus on improving their children’s health behaviors rather than focusing on weight.
And before you contact the school, remember teachers also are common perpetrators of weight stigma, Dr. Puhl noted. She gave as an example a study in which investigators assessed 133 teachers’ perceptions of middle or high school students’ abilities based on photos that had been digitally altered to show each girl both as average weight or as overweight. Each photo was associated with an essay specifically chosen because it was neither particularly good nor bad (Brit J Educ Psychol. 2019 Oct 26. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12322). The teachers judged the essays believed to be submitted by overweight girls to be “similar in structural quality,” but they gave the overweight girls lower grades than the average-weight girls. They also indicated that they considered the overweight girls “put forth more effort, needed more remedial assistance, and had lower overall grades in school.” The teachers also rated other teachers’ weight bias to be at a low level, and their own weight bias to be “significantly lower” than the others.
Assess your clinical environment. Be aware of your clinical environment and whether it meets the needs of youth with diverse body sizes. That includes having a range of sturdy armless seating options and adequately sized doorways, hallways, and restrooms. You also should have beds, wheelchairs, and exam tables with adequate weight capacity. Also check that you have supplies, such as robes or blood pressure cuffs, on hand for a variety of body sizes.
NEW ORLEANS – and support your patients regardless of weight.
Rebecca Puhl, PhD, a deputy director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at the University of Connecticut, Hartford, said that weight-based discrimination can occur whatever a person’s size or body shape, but it’s most often targeted at youth who are overweight or obese.
These children and teens commonly face teasing, harassment, cyberbullying, physical aggression, and social bullying from peers, coaches, teachers, and even parents, Dr. Puhl told attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Common beliefs about overweight people – that they have little self discipline or poor eating and activity habits – only perpetuate stereotypes, she said. Common stereotypes are that people with obesity are noncompliant, lazy, sloppy, unsuccessful, unintelligent, dishonest, and awkward.
And health professionals of every type have been found to harbor these biases. In one study of more than 4,000 first-year medical students, well over half the respondents revealed explicit (74%) and implicit (67%) weight bias (Obesity. 2014 Apr;22[4]:1201-8). The study also found that explicit weight bias was stronger than explicit bias against blacks, Hispanics, LGBTQ people, and poor people.
Know the effects of weight stigma
Far from a minor issue, the discrimination that begins in childhood against those who are overweight can have a long-lasting impact on their future prospects and mental health. Being overweight is overwhelmingly cited as the most common reason for bullying (Pediatr Obes. 2016 Aug;11[4]:241-50). Dr. Puhl described to attendees how weight bias shifts throughout a lifetime, beginning as early as preschool. In childhood, the stereotypes about being overweight worsen, and the teasing and bullying increase. By adolescence, this treatment affects teens’ psychological, social, and physical well-being. It then translates in adulthood into reduced opportunities in employment and education, and poorer access and treatment in health care.
The mental distress caused by weight bullying often takes the form of depression, anxiety, and substance use, Dr. Puhl said, and children’s academic success can be hampered by bullying about their weight. One study found a higher risk of poor grades and school avoidance with each additional teasing incident (J Youth Adolesc. 2012 Jan;41[1]:27-40).
Weight stigma also can contribute to more weight gain, obesity, and lower physical activity levels. Maladaptive eating behaviors can result from weight stigmatization as well: binge eating, emotional eating, increased consumption in general, and other eating disorders. Severe binge eating is 80% more likely among teens who are bullied about their weight, Dr. Puhl said, and the risk increases with increased frequency and types of bullying.
Children who are teased about their weight often become less willing to engage in physical activity, she noted. They may skip gym class, feel less competent about physical activity, and end up enjoying sports participation less.
Further, sexual- and gender-minority youth report high rates of weight-related teasing from friends and family regardless of their body mass index (BMI) percentile, Dr. Puhl emphasized. Researchers have found bullying about weight in this population linked to dieting, difficulty sleeping, high stress levels, binge drinking, smoking, and marijuana use.
Know how to combat weight bias
Dr. Puhl described strategies for reducing weight bias based on clinical practice recommendations in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statement entitled “Stigma Experienced by Children and Adolescents With Obesity” (Pediatrics. 2017 Dec;140[6]:e20173034).
Be aware. Consider how personal assumptions and attitudes about weight can affect your body language, tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, eye contact (or lack thereof), and spatial distance from the patient.
Recognizing the biological, genetic, and environmental causes of obesity can reduce stigma and improve understanding of the complexity of obesity etiology. It’s also important that you help parents understand this complexity and the negative impact of weight stigma.
Consider language and word choice. “Carefully consider language that might unintentionally communicate bias, blame, or negative judgment,” Dr. Puhl told attendees. “Use language that is supportive and empowering.”
Terms such as “unhealthy weight” and “high BMI” are less stigmatizing than “fat” and “morbidly obese” to parents, she said, and research has found nearly a quarter of parents would avoid future doctor appointments if their child’s doctor used stigmatizing terms to discuss weight (Pediatrics. 2011 Oct;128[4]:e786-93).
Teens themselves may have diverse preferences for the language used. Start by asking: “Could we talk about your weight today?” and then follow up by directly asking, “what words would you feel most comfortable with as we talk about your weight?”
Person-first language – such as “person with obesity” instead of “obese person” also is important to reducing stigma, she said.
It’s normal for you to feel uneasy about bringing up weight with patients, so Dr. Puhl recommended you practice dialogue out loud.
“Acknowledge your strengths,” she said. “You already have the skills and experience of engaging in difficult conversations with patients and families on a range of other health issues,” so apply that in this context as well.
Screen for negative experiences that could indicate weight-based bullying. These could include teasing and bullying, low self-esteem, poor school performance, depression, and anxiety.
“Remember that weight-based victimization can occur at diverse body sizes, not just in youth with obesity,” Dr. Puhl said. If you discover your patient is experiencing weight-related bullying, determine whether they have a support system in place and whether a mental health referral is appropriate. Provide or refer for behavior change counseling with motivational interviewing and patient-centered, empathic approaches. Parents should be aware of the issue and should contact the child’s teachers and school administration to help address it.
But before you do that, keep in mind that it’s not just peers doing the bullying. According to a study of teens with obesity enrolled in a national weight-loss camp, 37% of teen participants in 2012 said that their parents bully them (Pediatrics. 2013 Jan;131[1]:e1-9).
You should assess whether family interactions or the parents’ own history with weight is involved. If parents make disparaging comments about their child’s weight, “use this as an opportunity to model appropriate language and educate parents about weight bias,” Dr. Puhl said.
It’s also important to realize that parents themselves often are frustrated, so critical comments about their language or approach can backfire, she warned. Instead, help parents understand how to create a home setting that encourages healthy food choices, praises children for healthy decision making, and models positive health behaviors. It is key for them to focus on improving their children’s health behaviors rather than focusing on weight.
And before you contact the school, remember teachers also are common perpetrators of weight stigma, Dr. Puhl noted. She gave as an example a study in which investigators assessed 133 teachers’ perceptions of middle or high school students’ abilities based on photos that had been digitally altered to show each girl both as average weight or as overweight. Each photo was associated with an essay specifically chosen because it was neither particularly good nor bad (Brit J Educ Psychol. 2019 Oct 26. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12322). The teachers judged the essays believed to be submitted by overweight girls to be “similar in structural quality,” but they gave the overweight girls lower grades than the average-weight girls. They also indicated that they considered the overweight girls “put forth more effort, needed more remedial assistance, and had lower overall grades in school.” The teachers also rated other teachers’ weight bias to be at a low level, and their own weight bias to be “significantly lower” than the others.
Assess your clinical environment. Be aware of your clinical environment and whether it meets the needs of youth with diverse body sizes. That includes having a range of sturdy armless seating options and adequately sized doorways, hallways, and restrooms. You also should have beds, wheelchairs, and exam tables with adequate weight capacity. Also check that you have supplies, such as robes or blood pressure cuffs, on hand for a variety of body sizes.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM AAP 19
Genetic testing helps avoid false hemoglobinopathy diagnoses in newborns
Confirmatory genetic testing may be useful in the diagnosis of hemoglobinopathies for newborns with an abnormal hemoglobin (Hb) pattern, according to a recent study.
The findings suggest further research is needed to evaluate whether genetic testing programs for newborns could have diagnostic value in the clinical setting.
“We studied a consecutive cohort of newborns with an ‘FSA’ pattern (a suspected diagnosis of HbSbeta+) on the initial newborn screening test,” explained Lisa M. Shook of the University of Cincinnati and colleagues. The results were published in the International Journal of Neonatal Screening.
The retrospective study included a total of 1,151 newborns with an abnormal Hb pattern, 31 of which had an FSA pattern. The newborns were screened for hemoglobinopathies from 2015 to 2018. The findings of the initial newborn screening test (a suspected diagnosis of HbSbeta+) were compared with the diagnosis established using both protein-based and genetic confirmatory testing. Protein-based testing cannot accurately detect several hemoglobinopathies in newborns, especially when beta-thalassemia mutations are involved, according to the authors.
“During this study period, genetic testing was not universally applied in advance; it was used based on clinical suspicion,” the researchers wrote.
Among newborns with an FSA pattern, the mean gestational age was 38.7 weeks. In total, 17 newborns received genetic testing, and 30 had protein-based confirmatory testing.
“In this consecutive cohort of 31 newborns with a suspected diagnosis of HbSbeta+ based on initial newborn screening (an FSA pattern), none actually had HbSbeta+. All had the sickle cell trait (HbAS), instead; that is, we found that an initial FSA pattern was much more likely to indicate a final diagnosis of HbAS than HbSbeta+,” the authors wrote.
This meant that two-thirds of these newborns had a correct diagnosis of HbAS established at 2-4 weeks of age by protein-based confirmatory testing (and confirmed by genetic testing in a subset), but that the remaining one-third still had an incorrect, suspected diagnosis of HbSbeta+. This could lead to unnecessary treatment and testing of infants and incorrect, disease-focused counseling of parents and family members, according to the authors.
Two key limitations of the study were the small sample size and retrospective design.
“Based on this experience in which genetic testing was not universally applied, we now perform simultaneous protein-based and genetic testing as our standard clinical practice,” they concluded.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Ohio Department of Health. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Shook LM et al. Int J Neonatal Screen. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.3390/ijns6010007
Confirmatory genetic testing may be useful in the diagnosis of hemoglobinopathies for newborns with an abnormal hemoglobin (Hb) pattern, according to a recent study.
The findings suggest further research is needed to evaluate whether genetic testing programs for newborns could have diagnostic value in the clinical setting.
“We studied a consecutive cohort of newborns with an ‘FSA’ pattern (a suspected diagnosis of HbSbeta+) on the initial newborn screening test,” explained Lisa M. Shook of the University of Cincinnati and colleagues. The results were published in the International Journal of Neonatal Screening.
The retrospective study included a total of 1,151 newborns with an abnormal Hb pattern, 31 of which had an FSA pattern. The newborns were screened for hemoglobinopathies from 2015 to 2018. The findings of the initial newborn screening test (a suspected diagnosis of HbSbeta+) were compared with the diagnosis established using both protein-based and genetic confirmatory testing. Protein-based testing cannot accurately detect several hemoglobinopathies in newborns, especially when beta-thalassemia mutations are involved, according to the authors.
“During this study period, genetic testing was not universally applied in advance; it was used based on clinical suspicion,” the researchers wrote.
Among newborns with an FSA pattern, the mean gestational age was 38.7 weeks. In total, 17 newborns received genetic testing, and 30 had protein-based confirmatory testing.
“In this consecutive cohort of 31 newborns with a suspected diagnosis of HbSbeta+ based on initial newborn screening (an FSA pattern), none actually had HbSbeta+. All had the sickle cell trait (HbAS), instead; that is, we found that an initial FSA pattern was much more likely to indicate a final diagnosis of HbAS than HbSbeta+,” the authors wrote.
This meant that two-thirds of these newborns had a correct diagnosis of HbAS established at 2-4 weeks of age by protein-based confirmatory testing (and confirmed by genetic testing in a subset), but that the remaining one-third still had an incorrect, suspected diagnosis of HbSbeta+. This could lead to unnecessary treatment and testing of infants and incorrect, disease-focused counseling of parents and family members, according to the authors.
Two key limitations of the study were the small sample size and retrospective design.
“Based on this experience in which genetic testing was not universally applied, we now perform simultaneous protein-based and genetic testing as our standard clinical practice,” they concluded.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Ohio Department of Health. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Shook LM et al. Int J Neonatal Screen. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.3390/ijns6010007
Confirmatory genetic testing may be useful in the diagnosis of hemoglobinopathies for newborns with an abnormal hemoglobin (Hb) pattern, according to a recent study.
The findings suggest further research is needed to evaluate whether genetic testing programs for newborns could have diagnostic value in the clinical setting.
“We studied a consecutive cohort of newborns with an ‘FSA’ pattern (a suspected diagnosis of HbSbeta+) on the initial newborn screening test,” explained Lisa M. Shook of the University of Cincinnati and colleagues. The results were published in the International Journal of Neonatal Screening.
The retrospective study included a total of 1,151 newborns with an abnormal Hb pattern, 31 of which had an FSA pattern. The newborns were screened for hemoglobinopathies from 2015 to 2018. The findings of the initial newborn screening test (a suspected diagnosis of HbSbeta+) were compared with the diagnosis established using both protein-based and genetic confirmatory testing. Protein-based testing cannot accurately detect several hemoglobinopathies in newborns, especially when beta-thalassemia mutations are involved, according to the authors.
“During this study period, genetic testing was not universally applied in advance; it was used based on clinical suspicion,” the researchers wrote.
Among newborns with an FSA pattern, the mean gestational age was 38.7 weeks. In total, 17 newborns received genetic testing, and 30 had protein-based confirmatory testing.
“In this consecutive cohort of 31 newborns with a suspected diagnosis of HbSbeta+ based on initial newborn screening (an FSA pattern), none actually had HbSbeta+. All had the sickle cell trait (HbAS), instead; that is, we found that an initial FSA pattern was much more likely to indicate a final diagnosis of HbAS than HbSbeta+,” the authors wrote.
This meant that two-thirds of these newborns had a correct diagnosis of HbAS established at 2-4 weeks of age by protein-based confirmatory testing (and confirmed by genetic testing in a subset), but that the remaining one-third still had an incorrect, suspected diagnosis of HbSbeta+. This could lead to unnecessary treatment and testing of infants and incorrect, disease-focused counseling of parents and family members, according to the authors.
Two key limitations of the study were the small sample size and retrospective design.
“Based on this experience in which genetic testing was not universally applied, we now perform simultaneous protein-based and genetic testing as our standard clinical practice,” they concluded.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Ohio Department of Health. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Shook LM et al. Int J Neonatal Screen. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.3390/ijns6010007
FROM THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEONATAL SCREENING
Psoriasis ointment helped with itch, healing in phase 2 EB study
LONDON – , in a small, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study.
More importantly, use of the ointment promoted wound healing in those with the severe skin-blistering condition. Indeed, compared with placebo, a greater reduction in wound size was observed after 2 weeks when the ointment was applied (a mean reduction of 65.5% vs. 88.4%; P less than .006). However, at 1 month, no significant differences were seen in the size of the wounds between the two treatment arms.
“Calcipotriol is a vitamin D analog and it is well known that vitamin D is a very critical factor for skin homeostasis and proper wound healing,” Christina Guttmann-Gruber, PhD, said at the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA). Dr. Guttmann-Gruber, a group lead researcher for EB House Austria, which is based at the Salzburg (Austria) University Clinic for Dermatology, noted that vitamin D also helps with tissue repair and immune modulation, and enhances local antimicrobial activity.
During an oral poster presentation at the meeting, Dr. Guttmann-Gruber explained that in previous in vitro studies, it was found that low concentrations (100 nmol) of calcipotriol inhibited proliferation of RDEB tumor cells (Sci Rep. 2018 Sep 7;8:13430). Calcipotriol (also known as calcipotriene) also was found to improve the expression of antimicrobial peptides and promote wound closure. “Therefore, we thought that applying calcipotriol at the site of injury, on chronic wounds prone to superinfection where it is needed, might be beneficial for our patients.”
She and her associates designed a two-arm, randomized, double-blind crossover study to assess the effects of an existing calcipotriol-containing ointment on wound healing in patients with RDEB. The ointment used in the study is approved for treating psoriasis but was adapted by the in-house pharmacy team to reduce the concentration of calcipotriol to about 0.05 mcg/g, or around 121 nmol. The reason for the reduction was that, at higher doses, keratinocyte proliferation was reduced, which would be detrimental in RDEB patients.
Nine patients were included in the study and were randomized to either apply 1 g of the active or placebo ointment to each of two designated wounds, of at least 6 cm2 in size, every day for 4 weeks. A 2-month washout period then followed before the groups switched to use the other ointment for 1 month. Six out of the nine patients completed both treatment phases. The reasons for the patients not completing both intervention phases were not related to the drug.
Calcipotriol treatment resulted in a significant and steady reduction in itch over the entire course of treatment, which was not seen among those on placebo, Dr. Guttmann-Gruber observed. The reduction in itch was “striking,” but only while the treatment was being used, she said. Results for pain were less clear, with a significant reduction in pain after 2 weeks seen only in the placebo group, while both treatments reduced pain to the same degree by 1 month.
No serious adverse events were observed at any time point and topical use of the low-dose calcipotriol did not significantly change serum levels of calcium or vitamin D in the two patients in which this was studied, Dr. Guttmann-Gruber said.
“This is an approved drug; it’s used in psoriasis, but at a very high concentration. We were able to use it off label and make a diluted version,” she observed. “Any pharmacy can do it.” Although it was applied topically, it could be done by applying it to the dressing rather directly onto the wounded skin, she said.
Data on the skin microbiome response to treatment were also collected but were not available to analyze in time for presentation, but it appeared that there was improvement with the low-dose calcipotriol treatment, Dr. Guttmann-Gruber said. “When the wounds are healing, the microbial flora is improving.”
The next step will probably be to plan a multicenter trial of this treatment, Dr. Guttmann-Gruber said in an interview. The questions is whether such a trial would get the financial backing it needed, but if an orphan drug designation could be obtained for calcipotriol for EB, then it would be possible to conduct such a trial.
The study was funded by DEBRA Austria. The presenting author, Dr. Guttmann-Gruber, had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
SOURCE: Guttmann-Gruber C et al. EB World Congress 2020. Poster 34.
LONDON – , in a small, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study.
More importantly, use of the ointment promoted wound healing in those with the severe skin-blistering condition. Indeed, compared with placebo, a greater reduction in wound size was observed after 2 weeks when the ointment was applied (a mean reduction of 65.5% vs. 88.4%; P less than .006). However, at 1 month, no significant differences were seen in the size of the wounds between the two treatment arms.
“Calcipotriol is a vitamin D analog and it is well known that vitamin D is a very critical factor for skin homeostasis and proper wound healing,” Christina Guttmann-Gruber, PhD, said at the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA). Dr. Guttmann-Gruber, a group lead researcher for EB House Austria, which is based at the Salzburg (Austria) University Clinic for Dermatology, noted that vitamin D also helps with tissue repair and immune modulation, and enhances local antimicrobial activity.
During an oral poster presentation at the meeting, Dr. Guttmann-Gruber explained that in previous in vitro studies, it was found that low concentrations (100 nmol) of calcipotriol inhibited proliferation of RDEB tumor cells (Sci Rep. 2018 Sep 7;8:13430). Calcipotriol (also known as calcipotriene) also was found to improve the expression of antimicrobial peptides and promote wound closure. “Therefore, we thought that applying calcipotriol at the site of injury, on chronic wounds prone to superinfection where it is needed, might be beneficial for our patients.”
She and her associates designed a two-arm, randomized, double-blind crossover study to assess the effects of an existing calcipotriol-containing ointment on wound healing in patients with RDEB. The ointment used in the study is approved for treating psoriasis but was adapted by the in-house pharmacy team to reduce the concentration of calcipotriol to about 0.05 mcg/g, or around 121 nmol. The reason for the reduction was that, at higher doses, keratinocyte proliferation was reduced, which would be detrimental in RDEB patients.
Nine patients were included in the study and were randomized to either apply 1 g of the active or placebo ointment to each of two designated wounds, of at least 6 cm2 in size, every day for 4 weeks. A 2-month washout period then followed before the groups switched to use the other ointment for 1 month. Six out of the nine patients completed both treatment phases. The reasons for the patients not completing both intervention phases were not related to the drug.
Calcipotriol treatment resulted in a significant and steady reduction in itch over the entire course of treatment, which was not seen among those on placebo, Dr. Guttmann-Gruber observed. The reduction in itch was “striking,” but only while the treatment was being used, she said. Results for pain were less clear, with a significant reduction in pain after 2 weeks seen only in the placebo group, while both treatments reduced pain to the same degree by 1 month.
No serious adverse events were observed at any time point and topical use of the low-dose calcipotriol did not significantly change serum levels of calcium or vitamin D in the two patients in which this was studied, Dr. Guttmann-Gruber said.
“This is an approved drug; it’s used in psoriasis, but at a very high concentration. We were able to use it off label and make a diluted version,” she observed. “Any pharmacy can do it.” Although it was applied topically, it could be done by applying it to the dressing rather directly onto the wounded skin, she said.
Data on the skin microbiome response to treatment were also collected but were not available to analyze in time for presentation, but it appeared that there was improvement with the low-dose calcipotriol treatment, Dr. Guttmann-Gruber said. “When the wounds are healing, the microbial flora is improving.”
The next step will probably be to plan a multicenter trial of this treatment, Dr. Guttmann-Gruber said in an interview. The questions is whether such a trial would get the financial backing it needed, but if an orphan drug designation could be obtained for calcipotriol for EB, then it would be possible to conduct such a trial.
The study was funded by DEBRA Austria. The presenting author, Dr. Guttmann-Gruber, had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
SOURCE: Guttmann-Gruber C et al. EB World Congress 2020. Poster 34.
LONDON – , in a small, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study.
More importantly, use of the ointment promoted wound healing in those with the severe skin-blistering condition. Indeed, compared with placebo, a greater reduction in wound size was observed after 2 weeks when the ointment was applied (a mean reduction of 65.5% vs. 88.4%; P less than .006). However, at 1 month, no significant differences were seen in the size of the wounds between the two treatment arms.
“Calcipotriol is a vitamin D analog and it is well known that vitamin D is a very critical factor for skin homeostasis and proper wound healing,” Christina Guttmann-Gruber, PhD, said at the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA). Dr. Guttmann-Gruber, a group lead researcher for EB House Austria, which is based at the Salzburg (Austria) University Clinic for Dermatology, noted that vitamin D also helps with tissue repair and immune modulation, and enhances local antimicrobial activity.
During an oral poster presentation at the meeting, Dr. Guttmann-Gruber explained that in previous in vitro studies, it was found that low concentrations (100 nmol) of calcipotriol inhibited proliferation of RDEB tumor cells (Sci Rep. 2018 Sep 7;8:13430). Calcipotriol (also known as calcipotriene) also was found to improve the expression of antimicrobial peptides and promote wound closure. “Therefore, we thought that applying calcipotriol at the site of injury, on chronic wounds prone to superinfection where it is needed, might be beneficial for our patients.”
She and her associates designed a two-arm, randomized, double-blind crossover study to assess the effects of an existing calcipotriol-containing ointment on wound healing in patients with RDEB. The ointment used in the study is approved for treating psoriasis but was adapted by the in-house pharmacy team to reduce the concentration of calcipotriol to about 0.05 mcg/g, or around 121 nmol. The reason for the reduction was that, at higher doses, keratinocyte proliferation was reduced, which would be detrimental in RDEB patients.
Nine patients were included in the study and were randomized to either apply 1 g of the active or placebo ointment to each of two designated wounds, of at least 6 cm2 in size, every day for 4 weeks. A 2-month washout period then followed before the groups switched to use the other ointment for 1 month. Six out of the nine patients completed both treatment phases. The reasons for the patients not completing both intervention phases were not related to the drug.
Calcipotriol treatment resulted in a significant and steady reduction in itch over the entire course of treatment, which was not seen among those on placebo, Dr. Guttmann-Gruber observed. The reduction in itch was “striking,” but only while the treatment was being used, she said. Results for pain were less clear, with a significant reduction in pain after 2 weeks seen only in the placebo group, while both treatments reduced pain to the same degree by 1 month.
No serious adverse events were observed at any time point and topical use of the low-dose calcipotriol did not significantly change serum levels of calcium or vitamin D in the two patients in which this was studied, Dr. Guttmann-Gruber said.
“This is an approved drug; it’s used in psoriasis, but at a very high concentration. We were able to use it off label and make a diluted version,” she observed. “Any pharmacy can do it.” Although it was applied topically, it could be done by applying it to the dressing rather directly onto the wounded skin, she said.
Data on the skin microbiome response to treatment were also collected but were not available to analyze in time for presentation, but it appeared that there was improvement with the low-dose calcipotriol treatment, Dr. Guttmann-Gruber said. “When the wounds are healing, the microbial flora is improving.”
The next step will probably be to plan a multicenter trial of this treatment, Dr. Guttmann-Gruber said in an interview. The questions is whether such a trial would get the financial backing it needed, but if an orphan drug designation could be obtained for calcipotriol for EB, then it would be possible to conduct such a trial.
The study was funded by DEBRA Austria. The presenting author, Dr. Guttmann-Gruber, had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
SOURCE: Guttmann-Gruber C et al. EB World Congress 2020. Poster 34.
REPORTING FROM EB 2020
Pharmacologic prophylaxis fails in pediatric migraine
Clinicians hoped that medications used in adults – such as antidepressants, antiepileptics, antihypertensive agents, calcium channel blockers, and food supplements – would find similar success in children. Unfortunately, researchers found only short-term signs of efficacy over placebo, with no benefit lasting more than 6 months.
The study, conducted by a team led by Cosima Locher, PhD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, included 23 double-blind, randomized, controlled trials with a total of 2,217 patients; the mean age was 11 years. They compared 12 pharmacologic agents with each other or with placebo in the study, published online in JAMA Pediatrics.
In a main efficacy analysis that included 19 studies, only two treatments outperformed placebo: propranolol (standardized mean difference, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-1.17) and topiramate (SMD, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.03-1.15). There were no statistically significant between-treatment differences.
The results had an overall low to moderate certainty.
When propranolol was compared to placebo, the 95% prediction interval (–0.62 to 1.82) was wider than the significant confidence interval (0.03-1.17), and comprised both beneficial and detrimental effects. A similar result was found with topiramate, with a prediction interval of –0.62 to 1.80 extending into nonsignificant effects (95% CI, 0.03-1.15). In both cases, significant effects were found only when the prediction interval was 70%.
In a long-term analysis (greater than 6 months), no treatment outperformed placebo.
The treatments generally were acceptable. The researchers found no significant difference in tolerability between any of the treatments and each other or placebo. Safety data analyzed from 13 trials revealed no significant differences between treatments and placebo.
“Because specific effects of drugs are associated with the size of the placebo effect, the lack of drug efficacy in our NMA [network meta-analysis] could be owing to a comparatively high placebo effect in children. In fact, there is indirect evidence [from other studies] that the placebo effect is more pronounced in children and adolescents than in adults,” Dr. Locher and associates said. They suggested that studies were needed to quantify the placebo effect in pediatric migraine, and if it was large, to develop innovative therapies making use of this.
The findings should lead to some changes in practice, Boris Zernikow, MD, PhD, of Children’s and Adolescents’ Hospital Datteln (Germany) wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Pharmacological prophylactic treatment of childhood migraine should be an exception rather than the rule, and nonpharmacologic approaches should be emphasized, particularly because the placebo effect is magnified in children, he said.
Many who suffer migraines in childhood will continue to be affected in adulthood, so pediatric intervention is a good opportunity to instill effective strategies. These include: using abortive medication early in an attack and using antimigraine medications for only that specific type of headache; engaging in physical activity to reduce migraine attacks; getting sufficient sleep; and learning relaxation and other psychological approaches to counter migraines.
Dr. Zernikow had no relevant financial disclosures. One study author received grants from Amgen and other support from Grunenthal and Akelos. The study received funding from the Sara Page Mayo Endowment for Pediatric Pain Research, Education, and Treatment; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the Schweizer-Arau-Foundation; and the Theophrastus Foundation.
SOURCES: Locher C et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5856; Zernikow B. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5907.
Clinicians hoped that medications used in adults – such as antidepressants, antiepileptics, antihypertensive agents, calcium channel blockers, and food supplements – would find similar success in children. Unfortunately, researchers found only short-term signs of efficacy over placebo, with no benefit lasting more than 6 months.
The study, conducted by a team led by Cosima Locher, PhD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, included 23 double-blind, randomized, controlled trials with a total of 2,217 patients; the mean age was 11 years. They compared 12 pharmacologic agents with each other or with placebo in the study, published online in JAMA Pediatrics.
In a main efficacy analysis that included 19 studies, only two treatments outperformed placebo: propranolol (standardized mean difference, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-1.17) and topiramate (SMD, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.03-1.15). There were no statistically significant between-treatment differences.
The results had an overall low to moderate certainty.
When propranolol was compared to placebo, the 95% prediction interval (–0.62 to 1.82) was wider than the significant confidence interval (0.03-1.17), and comprised both beneficial and detrimental effects. A similar result was found with topiramate, with a prediction interval of –0.62 to 1.80 extending into nonsignificant effects (95% CI, 0.03-1.15). In both cases, significant effects were found only when the prediction interval was 70%.
In a long-term analysis (greater than 6 months), no treatment outperformed placebo.
The treatments generally were acceptable. The researchers found no significant difference in tolerability between any of the treatments and each other or placebo. Safety data analyzed from 13 trials revealed no significant differences between treatments and placebo.
“Because specific effects of drugs are associated with the size of the placebo effect, the lack of drug efficacy in our NMA [network meta-analysis] could be owing to a comparatively high placebo effect in children. In fact, there is indirect evidence [from other studies] that the placebo effect is more pronounced in children and adolescents than in adults,” Dr. Locher and associates said. They suggested that studies were needed to quantify the placebo effect in pediatric migraine, and if it was large, to develop innovative therapies making use of this.
The findings should lead to some changes in practice, Boris Zernikow, MD, PhD, of Children’s and Adolescents’ Hospital Datteln (Germany) wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Pharmacological prophylactic treatment of childhood migraine should be an exception rather than the rule, and nonpharmacologic approaches should be emphasized, particularly because the placebo effect is magnified in children, he said.
Many who suffer migraines in childhood will continue to be affected in adulthood, so pediatric intervention is a good opportunity to instill effective strategies. These include: using abortive medication early in an attack and using antimigraine medications for only that specific type of headache; engaging in physical activity to reduce migraine attacks; getting sufficient sleep; and learning relaxation and other psychological approaches to counter migraines.
Dr. Zernikow had no relevant financial disclosures. One study author received grants from Amgen and other support from Grunenthal and Akelos. The study received funding from the Sara Page Mayo Endowment for Pediatric Pain Research, Education, and Treatment; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the Schweizer-Arau-Foundation; and the Theophrastus Foundation.
SOURCES: Locher C et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5856; Zernikow B. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5907.
Clinicians hoped that medications used in adults – such as antidepressants, antiepileptics, antihypertensive agents, calcium channel blockers, and food supplements – would find similar success in children. Unfortunately, researchers found only short-term signs of efficacy over placebo, with no benefit lasting more than 6 months.
The study, conducted by a team led by Cosima Locher, PhD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, included 23 double-blind, randomized, controlled trials with a total of 2,217 patients; the mean age was 11 years. They compared 12 pharmacologic agents with each other or with placebo in the study, published online in JAMA Pediatrics.
In a main efficacy analysis that included 19 studies, only two treatments outperformed placebo: propranolol (standardized mean difference, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-1.17) and topiramate (SMD, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.03-1.15). There were no statistically significant between-treatment differences.
The results had an overall low to moderate certainty.
When propranolol was compared to placebo, the 95% prediction interval (–0.62 to 1.82) was wider than the significant confidence interval (0.03-1.17), and comprised both beneficial and detrimental effects. A similar result was found with topiramate, with a prediction interval of –0.62 to 1.80 extending into nonsignificant effects (95% CI, 0.03-1.15). In both cases, significant effects were found only when the prediction interval was 70%.
In a long-term analysis (greater than 6 months), no treatment outperformed placebo.
The treatments generally were acceptable. The researchers found no significant difference in tolerability between any of the treatments and each other or placebo. Safety data analyzed from 13 trials revealed no significant differences between treatments and placebo.
“Because specific effects of drugs are associated with the size of the placebo effect, the lack of drug efficacy in our NMA [network meta-analysis] could be owing to a comparatively high placebo effect in children. In fact, there is indirect evidence [from other studies] that the placebo effect is more pronounced in children and adolescents than in adults,” Dr. Locher and associates said. They suggested that studies were needed to quantify the placebo effect in pediatric migraine, and if it was large, to develop innovative therapies making use of this.
The findings should lead to some changes in practice, Boris Zernikow, MD, PhD, of Children’s and Adolescents’ Hospital Datteln (Germany) wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Pharmacological prophylactic treatment of childhood migraine should be an exception rather than the rule, and nonpharmacologic approaches should be emphasized, particularly because the placebo effect is magnified in children, he said.
Many who suffer migraines in childhood will continue to be affected in adulthood, so pediatric intervention is a good opportunity to instill effective strategies. These include: using abortive medication early in an attack and using antimigraine medications for only that specific type of headache; engaging in physical activity to reduce migraine attacks; getting sufficient sleep; and learning relaxation and other psychological approaches to counter migraines.
Dr. Zernikow had no relevant financial disclosures. One study author received grants from Amgen and other support from Grunenthal and Akelos. The study received funding from the Sara Page Mayo Endowment for Pediatric Pain Research, Education, and Treatment; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the Schweizer-Arau-Foundation; and the Theophrastus Foundation.
SOURCES: Locher C et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5856; Zernikow B. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5907.
FROM JAMA PEDIATRICS