Pediatric News

It is too early yet to explicitly determine the effects of the Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) on pregnant women and their fetuses. This is a critical concern, because members of the coronavirus family, which have been responsible for previous outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV), have demonstrated their ability to cause severe complications during pregnancy, according to researchers.

The SARS virus outbreak and the more recent MERS virus outbreak provide the best available models with which to examine the potential impact of 2019-nCoV on pregnancy, according to a letter published online in the Lancet.

Twelve pregnant women were infected with SARS-CoV during the 2002-2003 pandemic. Three (25%) of these women died during pregnancy. Overall, four of seven women had a miscarriage in the first trimester. In the second or third trimester, two out of five women had fetal growth restriction, and four of the five had preterm birth (one case was spontaneous and three were induced because of the maternal condition), according to corresponding author David Baud, MD, PhD, of the maternal-fetal and obstetrics research unit at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, and colleagues.

A review of 11 pregnant women infected with the virus showed that 10 women (91%) presented with adverse outcomes. Six (55%) neonates were admitted to the ICU; three (27%) died. Two neonates were delivered prematurely because their mothers developed severe respiratory failure.

Because 2019-nCov has a potential for similar behavior, “we recommend systematic screening of any suspected 2019-nCoV infection during pregnancy. If 2019-nCoV infection during pregnancy is confirmed, extended follow-up should be recommended for mothers and their fetuses,” concluded Dr. Baud and colleagues.

Dr. Baud and associates are known for their previous research on the impacts of the Zika virus on pregnancy. They reported having no competing interests.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Baud D et al. Lancet. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30311-1.

It is too early yet to explicitly determine the effects of the Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) on pregnant women and their fetuses. This is a critical concern, because members of the coronavirus family, which have been responsible for previous outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV), have demonstrated their ability to cause severe complications during pregnancy, according to researchers.

The SARS virus outbreak and the more recent MERS virus outbreak provide the best available models with which to examine the potential impact of 2019-nCoV on pregnancy, according to a letter published online in the Lancet.

Twelve pregnant women were infected with SARS-CoV during the 2002-2003 pandemic. Three (25%) of these women died during pregnancy. Overall, four of seven women had a miscarriage in the first trimester. In the second or third trimester, two out of five women had fetal growth restriction, and four of the five had preterm birth (one case was spontaneous and three were induced because of the maternal condition), according to corresponding author David Baud, MD, PhD, of the maternal-fetal and obstetrics research unit at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, and colleagues.

A review of 11 pregnant women infected with the virus showed that 10 women (91%) presented with adverse outcomes. Six (55%) neonates were admitted to the ICU; three (27%) died. Two neonates were delivered prematurely because their mothers developed severe respiratory failure.

Because 2019-nCov has a potential for similar behavior, “we recommend systematic screening of any suspected 2019-nCoV infection during pregnancy. If 2019-nCoV infection during pregnancy is confirmed, extended follow-up should be recommended for mothers and their fetuses,” concluded Dr. Baud and colleagues.

Dr. Baud and associates are known for their previous research on the impacts of the Zika virus on pregnancy. They reported having no competing interests.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Baud D et al. Lancet. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30311-1.

It is too early yet to explicitly determine the effects of the Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) on pregnant women and their fetuses. This is a critical concern, because members of the coronavirus family, which have been responsible for previous outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV), have demonstrated their ability to cause severe complications during pregnancy, according to researchers.

The SARS virus outbreak and the more recent MERS virus outbreak provide the best available models with which to examine the potential impact of 2019-nCoV on pregnancy, according to a letter published online in the Lancet.

Twelve pregnant women were infected with SARS-CoV during the 2002-2003 pandemic. Three (25%) of these women died during pregnancy. Overall, four of seven women had a miscarriage in the first trimester. In the second or third trimester, two out of five women had fetal growth restriction, and four of the five had preterm birth (one case was spontaneous and three were induced because of the maternal condition), according to corresponding author David Baud, MD, PhD, of the maternal-fetal and obstetrics research unit at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, and colleagues.

A review of 11 pregnant women infected with the virus showed that 10 women (91%) presented with adverse outcomes. Six (55%) neonates were admitted to the ICU; three (27%) died. Two neonates were delivered prematurely because their mothers developed severe respiratory failure.

Because 2019-nCov has a potential for similar behavior, “we recommend systematic screening of any suspected 2019-nCoV infection during pregnancy. If 2019-nCoV infection during pregnancy is confirmed, extended follow-up should be recommended for mothers and their fetuses,” concluded Dr. Baud and colleagues.

Dr. Baud and associates are known for their previous research on the impacts of the Zika virus on pregnancy. They reported having no competing interests.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Baud D et al. Lancet. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30311-1.

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the second time during the 2019-2020 flu season, activity measures have climbed into noteworthy territory.

The proportion of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) reached its highest December level, 7.1%, since 2003 and then dropped for 2 weeks. Three weeks of increases since then, however, have the outpatient-visit rate at 6.7% for the week ending Feb. 1, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. The baseline rate for the United States is 2.4%.

That rate of 6.7% is already above the highest rates recorded in eight of the last nine flu seasons, and another increase could mean a second, separate trip above 7.0% in the 2019-2020 season – something that has not occurred since national tracking began in 1997, CDC data show.

Those same data also show that, from 1997-1998 to 2018-2019, the United States has spent a total of 11 weeks above the 7.0% mark for ILI-related visits.

Another important measure on the rise, the proportion of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza, reached a new high for the season, 29.8%, during the week of Feb. 1, the CDC’s influenza division said.

Tests at clinical laboratories also show that predominance is continuing to switch from type B (45.6%) to type A (54.4%), the influenza division noted. Overall predominance for the season, however, continues to favor type B, 59.3% to 40.7%.

The percentage of deaths caused by pneumonia and influenza, which passed the threshold for epidemic of 7.2% back in early January, has been trending downward for the last 3 weeks and was 7.1% as of Feb. 1, according to the influenza division.

ILI-related deaths among children continue to remain high, with a total count of 78 for the season after another 10 deaths were reported during the week ending Feb. 1, the CDC reported. Comparable numbers for the last three seasons are 44 (2018-2019), 97 (2017-2018), and 35 (2016-2017).

The CDC estimates put the total number of ILIs at around 22 million for the season so far, leading to 210,000 hospitalizations. The agency said that it expects to release estimates of vaccine effectiveness later this month.

rfranki@mdedge.com

For the second time during the 2019-2020 flu season, activity measures have climbed into noteworthy territory.

The proportion of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) reached its highest December level, 7.1%, since 2003 and then dropped for 2 weeks. Three weeks of increases since then, however, have the outpatient-visit rate at 6.7% for the week ending Feb. 1, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. The baseline rate for the United States is 2.4%.

That rate of 6.7% is already above the highest rates recorded in eight of the last nine flu seasons, and another increase could mean a second, separate trip above 7.0% in the 2019-2020 season – something that has not occurred since national tracking began in 1997, CDC data show.

Those same data also show that, from 1997-1998 to 2018-2019, the United States has spent a total of 11 weeks above the 7.0% mark for ILI-related visits.

Another important measure on the rise, the proportion of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza, reached a new high for the season, 29.8%, during the week of Feb. 1, the CDC’s influenza division said.

Tests at clinical laboratories also show that predominance is continuing to switch from type B (45.6%) to type A (54.4%), the influenza division noted. Overall predominance for the season, however, continues to favor type B, 59.3% to 40.7%.

The percentage of deaths caused by pneumonia and influenza, which passed the threshold for epidemic of 7.2% back in early January, has been trending downward for the last 3 weeks and was 7.1% as of Feb. 1, according to the influenza division.

ILI-related deaths among children continue to remain high, with a total count of 78 for the season after another 10 deaths were reported during the week ending Feb. 1, the CDC reported. Comparable numbers for the last three seasons are 44 (2018-2019), 97 (2017-2018), and 35 (2016-2017).

The CDC estimates put the total number of ILIs at around 22 million for the season so far, leading to 210,000 hospitalizations. The agency said that it expects to release estimates of vaccine effectiveness later this month.

rfranki@mdedge.com

For the second time during the 2019-2020 flu season, activity measures have climbed into noteworthy territory.

The proportion of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) reached its highest December level, 7.1%, since 2003 and then dropped for 2 weeks. Three weeks of increases since then, however, have the outpatient-visit rate at 6.7% for the week ending Feb. 1, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. The baseline rate for the United States is 2.4%.

That rate of 6.7% is already above the highest rates recorded in eight of the last nine flu seasons, and another increase could mean a second, separate trip above 7.0% in the 2019-2020 season – something that has not occurred since national tracking began in 1997, CDC data show.

Those same data also show that, from 1997-1998 to 2018-2019, the United States has spent a total of 11 weeks above the 7.0% mark for ILI-related visits.

Another important measure on the rise, the proportion of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza, reached a new high for the season, 29.8%, during the week of Feb. 1, the CDC’s influenza division said.

Tests at clinical laboratories also show that predominance is continuing to switch from type B (45.6%) to type A (54.4%), the influenza division noted. Overall predominance for the season, however, continues to favor type B, 59.3% to 40.7%.

The percentage of deaths caused by pneumonia and influenza, which passed the threshold for epidemic of 7.2% back in early January, has been trending downward for the last 3 weeks and was 7.1% as of Feb. 1, according to the influenza division.

ILI-related deaths among children continue to remain high, with a total count of 78 for the season after another 10 deaths were reported during the week ending Feb. 1, the CDC reported. Comparable numbers for the last three seasons are 44 (2018-2019), 97 (2017-2018), and 35 (2016-2017).

The CDC estimates put the total number of ILIs at around 22 million for the season so far, leading to 210,000 hospitalizations. The agency said that it expects to release estimates of vaccine effectiveness later this month.

rfranki@mdedge.com

A single dose of the human papillomavirus vaccine is as effective as two or three doses for preventing cervical cancer in girls and women vaccinated at 15-19 years of age, based on data from a retrospective study of more than 100,000 girls and women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s current recommendations include a two-dose vaccine schedule for the HPV vaccine for girls and boys younger than 15 years, and a three-dose schedule for girls and young women aged 16-26 years who had their first dose before turning 15.

However, rates of HPV vaccination in the United States fall short of those in other developed nations, and evidence supporting the protective value of a specific number of vaccine doses are mixed, wrote Ana M. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, and colleagues. Fewer than three doses could have benefits, including easier logistics, lower costs, higher acceptance rates, and fewer side effects, they said. The study was published in Cancer.

The researchers reviewed data from 66,541 girls and women aged 9-26 years who had received at least one dose of HPV vaccine (4vHPV) between Jan. 1, 2006, and June 30, 2015, and 66,541 matched unvaccinated controls. The primary outcomes were histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease and high-grade cytology.

Overall, the adjusted hazard ratios for histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease among patients vaccinated at the ages of 15-19 years with one, two, and three doses were similar, at 0.64, 0.72, and 0.66, respectively, compared with unvaccinated individuals.

The risk of high-grade cytology was significantly lower for girls and women who received three doses at age 15-19 years, compared with unvaccinated individuals, but no difference was seen in high-grade cytology between unvaccinated individuals and those who received one or two doses. In addition, the unadjusted rate of preinvasive cervical disease at 5 years was 2.65% for unvaccinated teens aged 15-19 years, compared with 1.62%, 1.99%, and 1.86% in the one-, two- and three-dose groups, respectively.The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of billing codes to determine outcomes and the inability to determine potential vaccination through multiple insurance carriers, and the inclusion only of privately insured patients from the claims database, the researchers noted.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and show a similar level of association between varying vaccine doses and preinvasive cervical lesions in the 15- to 19-year-old population, they said.

“Efforts should focus on not only the need to initiate the HPV vaccine but also the need for beginning and continuing cervical cancer screening among young women who are vaccinated at older ages (18 years and older),” they said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Julia M.L. Brotherton, PhD, MPH, and Karin Sundström, MD, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, Australia, and the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, respectively, wrote that the study’s strengths included the large numbers of girls and women who received a single dose of the HPV vaccine, compared with previous studies, as well as the adjustments for histories of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy (Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32696). “Initial observational data from vaccination programs did not support equivalent one-dose protection against genital warts or cervical disease, but such data may have been confounded by potentially higher risk characteristics of women who only ever received one or two doses of an intended three-dose course i.e., women noncompliant with the vaccine program [amplified by the monitoring of outcomes among the initial catch-up populations of already infected women]) and by the inherent bias that prevalent infection/disease is more likely to become apparent coincidently with the earlier doses in a vaccine course,” they said. The study findings have implications for global goals to eliminate cervical cancer, the editorial authors noted.

“If one dose of an HPV vaccine were sufficient for effective protection, HPV vaccine implementation and scale-up would require less logistics (while being amenable to a periodic campaign approach), available doses could be extended further, and the overall cost would be lower,” they said.

The study was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, and by the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Brotherton disclosed serving as an investigator for Seqirus and Merck; Dr. Sundström disclosed research funding for her institution from Merck and MSD Sweden.

SOURCE: Rodriguez AM et al. Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32700.

A single dose of the human papillomavirus vaccine is as effective as two or three doses for preventing cervical cancer in girls and women vaccinated at 15-19 years of age, based on data from a retrospective study of more than 100,000 girls and women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s current recommendations include a two-dose vaccine schedule for the HPV vaccine for girls and boys younger than 15 years, and a three-dose schedule for girls and young women aged 16-26 years who had their first dose before turning 15.

However, rates of HPV vaccination in the United States fall short of those in other developed nations, and evidence supporting the protective value of a specific number of vaccine doses are mixed, wrote Ana M. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, and colleagues. Fewer than three doses could have benefits, including easier logistics, lower costs, higher acceptance rates, and fewer side effects, they said. The study was published in Cancer.

The researchers reviewed data from 66,541 girls and women aged 9-26 years who had received at least one dose of HPV vaccine (4vHPV) between Jan. 1, 2006, and June 30, 2015, and 66,541 matched unvaccinated controls. The primary outcomes were histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease and high-grade cytology.

Overall, the adjusted hazard ratios for histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease among patients vaccinated at the ages of 15-19 years with one, two, and three doses were similar, at 0.64, 0.72, and 0.66, respectively, compared with unvaccinated individuals.

The risk of high-grade cytology was significantly lower for girls and women who received three doses at age 15-19 years, compared with unvaccinated individuals, but no difference was seen in high-grade cytology between unvaccinated individuals and those who received one or two doses. In addition, the unadjusted rate of preinvasive cervical disease at 5 years was 2.65% for unvaccinated teens aged 15-19 years, compared with 1.62%, 1.99%, and 1.86% in the one-, two- and three-dose groups, respectively.The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of billing codes to determine outcomes and the inability to determine potential vaccination through multiple insurance carriers, and the inclusion only of privately insured patients from the claims database, the researchers noted.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and show a similar level of association between varying vaccine doses and preinvasive cervical lesions in the 15- to 19-year-old population, they said.

“Efforts should focus on not only the need to initiate the HPV vaccine but also the need for beginning and continuing cervical cancer screening among young women who are vaccinated at older ages (18 years and older),” they said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Julia M.L. Brotherton, PhD, MPH, and Karin Sundström, MD, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, Australia, and the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, respectively, wrote that the study’s strengths included the large numbers of girls and women who received a single dose of the HPV vaccine, compared with previous studies, as well as the adjustments for histories of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy (Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32696). “Initial observational data from vaccination programs did not support equivalent one-dose protection against genital warts or cervical disease, but such data may have been confounded by potentially higher risk characteristics of women who only ever received one or two doses of an intended three-dose course i.e., women noncompliant with the vaccine program [amplified by the monitoring of outcomes among the initial catch-up populations of already infected women]) and by the inherent bias that prevalent infection/disease is more likely to become apparent coincidently with the earlier doses in a vaccine course,” they said. The study findings have implications for global goals to eliminate cervical cancer, the editorial authors noted.

“If one dose of an HPV vaccine were sufficient for effective protection, HPV vaccine implementation and scale-up would require less logistics (while being amenable to a periodic campaign approach), available doses could be extended further, and the overall cost would be lower,” they said.

The study was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, and by the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Brotherton disclosed serving as an investigator for Seqirus and Merck; Dr. Sundström disclosed research funding for her institution from Merck and MSD Sweden.

SOURCE: Rodriguez AM et al. Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32700.

A single dose of the human papillomavirus vaccine is as effective as two or three doses for preventing cervical cancer in girls and women vaccinated at 15-19 years of age, based on data from a retrospective study of more than 100,000 girls and women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s current recommendations include a two-dose vaccine schedule for the HPV vaccine for girls and boys younger than 15 years, and a three-dose schedule for girls and young women aged 16-26 years who had their first dose before turning 15.

However, rates of HPV vaccination in the United States fall short of those in other developed nations, and evidence supporting the protective value of a specific number of vaccine doses are mixed, wrote Ana M. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, and colleagues. Fewer than three doses could have benefits, including easier logistics, lower costs, higher acceptance rates, and fewer side effects, they said. The study was published in Cancer.

The researchers reviewed data from 66,541 girls and women aged 9-26 years who had received at least one dose of HPV vaccine (4vHPV) between Jan. 1, 2006, and June 30, 2015, and 66,541 matched unvaccinated controls. The primary outcomes were histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease and high-grade cytology.

Overall, the adjusted hazard ratios for histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease among patients vaccinated at the ages of 15-19 years with one, two, and three doses were similar, at 0.64, 0.72, and 0.66, respectively, compared with unvaccinated individuals.

The risk of high-grade cytology was significantly lower for girls and women who received three doses at age 15-19 years, compared with unvaccinated individuals, but no difference was seen in high-grade cytology between unvaccinated individuals and those who received one or two doses. In addition, the unadjusted rate of preinvasive cervical disease at 5 years was 2.65% for unvaccinated teens aged 15-19 years, compared with 1.62%, 1.99%, and 1.86% in the one-, two- and three-dose groups, respectively.The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of billing codes to determine outcomes and the inability to determine potential vaccination through multiple insurance carriers, and the inclusion only of privately insured patients from the claims database, the researchers noted.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and show a similar level of association between varying vaccine doses and preinvasive cervical lesions in the 15- to 19-year-old population, they said.

“Efforts should focus on not only the need to initiate the HPV vaccine but also the need for beginning and continuing cervical cancer screening among young women who are vaccinated at older ages (18 years and older),” they said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Julia M.L. Brotherton, PhD, MPH, and Karin Sundström, MD, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, Australia, and the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, respectively, wrote that the study’s strengths included the large numbers of girls and women who received a single dose of the HPV vaccine, compared with previous studies, as well as the adjustments for histories of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy (Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32696). “Initial observational data from vaccination programs did not support equivalent one-dose protection against genital warts or cervical disease, but such data may have been confounded by potentially higher risk characteristics of women who only ever received one or two doses of an intended three-dose course i.e., women noncompliant with the vaccine program [amplified by the monitoring of outcomes among the initial catch-up populations of already infected women]) and by the inherent bias that prevalent infection/disease is more likely to become apparent coincidently with the earlier doses in a vaccine course,” they said. The study findings have implications for global goals to eliminate cervical cancer, the editorial authors noted.

“If one dose of an HPV vaccine were sufficient for effective protection, HPV vaccine implementation and scale-up would require less logistics (while being amenable to a periodic campaign approach), available doses could be extended further, and the overall cost would be lower,” they said.

The study was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, and by the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Brotherton disclosed serving as an investigator for Seqirus and Merck; Dr. Sundström disclosed research funding for her institution from Merck and MSD Sweden.

SOURCE: Rodriguez AM et al. Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32700.

A randomized, controlled trial of Gilead’s antiviral drug remdesivir is currently underway in China in hopes that it will be an effective treatment for the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV).

dbrunk@mdedge.com

A randomized, controlled trial of Gilead’s antiviral drug remdesivir is currently underway in China in hopes that it will be an effective treatment for the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV).

dbrunk@mdedge.com

A randomized, controlled trial of Gilead’s antiviral drug remdesivir is currently underway in China in hopes that it will be an effective treatment for the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV).

dbrunk@mdedge.com

BALTIMORE – Abnormal findings on overnight continuous EEG in patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent epilepsy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. In addition, a positive family history of febrile seizures also is associated with an increased risk of epilepsy in this population.

The literature suggests that the prevalence of epilepsy in patients with ASD ranges from 5% to 40%. This broad range may result from the heterogeneity of epilepsy risk factors among patients with ASD. These risk factors include intellectual disability, age, and syndromic forms of ASD such as tuberous sclerosis complex. Regardless of whether they have epilepsy, approximately 60% of patients with ASD have EEG abnormalities. The prognostic implications of these abnormalities are uncertain.
 

Investigators reviewed patients’ charts retrospectively

Divya Nadkarni, MD, a neurologist at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, and colleagues sought to clarify the relationship between risk factors such as EEG abnormalities and subsequent epilepsy in patients with ASD. They retrospectively identified patients who were followed jointly at UCLA and at Pediatric Minds, a neurodevelopmental clinic in Torrance, Calif. Eligible patients had a diagnosis of ASD, based on criteria from DSM-IV, DSM-5, or the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule. In addition, patients had overnight, continuous video EEG evaluation and a minimum follow-up of 1 week after EEG. Patients with a history of epilepsy before the initial EEG evaluation were excluded. Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues collected clinical and electrographic data by chart review.

The study’s primary outcome was time to onset of epilepsy. Among the variables that the investigators analyzed were EEG abnormalities, which they defined as focal slowing or generalized or focal epileptiform discharges. The other variables were history of febrile seizures, family history of epilepsy, family history of febrile seizures, and family history of ASD. Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues analyzed the data using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models.

In all, 164 patients met the study’s inclusion criteria. The population’s median age at the initial EEG evaluation was 4.5 years. The median follow-up after this evaluation was 2.4 years. The investigators found 63 patients (38.4%) with abnormal EEGs, and 18 patients (11%) subsequently developed epilepsy after a median of 1.9 years.
 

Family history of febrile seizures was associated with time to epilepsy onset

The time to epilepsy onset was associated with abnormalities on the initial overnight continuous EEG. The hazard ratio of epilepsy among patients with EEG abnormalities was 8.0. Approximately one-third of patients with EEG abnormalities developed subsequent epilepsy, compared with approximately 5% of patients without EEG abnormalities, said Dr. Nadkarni.

In addition, time to epilepsy onset was independently associated with a positive family history of febrile seizures. This finding was unexpected, said Dr. Nadkarni. The hazard ratio of epilepsy among patients with a positive family history of febrile seizures was 12.6.

The patient’s own history of febrile seizures was not associated with time to epilepsy onset. One potential explanation for this result is that it is difficult to distinguish between febrile seizure and seizure with fever in the general pediatric population. Making this distinction in children with ASD, who may have atypical febrile seizures, might be still more difficult, said Dr. Nadkarni.
 

Time for guideline updates?

“Statements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Neurology, and the Child Neurology Society do not currently recommend routine EEG screening for all children with ASD,” said Dr. Nadkarni. Investigators are suggesting that the guidelines should be reevaluated, however. “Research shows that EEG abnormalities, particularly epileptiform abnormalities, are associated with worse outcome, in terms of developmental and adaptive functioning. EEG endophenotypes in ASD are starting to be elucidated ... That’s one reason to consider EEG screening.” Furthermore, preliminary connectivity research suggests that EEG screening of high-risk siblings of children with ASD may predict the development of ASD.

The small cohort and retrospective design were among the study’s limitations, said Dr. Nadkarni. Some patients were lost to follow-up, and some data were missing from patients’ charts.

“In our opinion, further study – ideally, a prospective, observational cohort study – might be warranted to determine whether overnight continuous EEG monitoring might be useful as a screening tool for epilepsy in patients with ASD,” Dr. Nadkarni concluded.

The study was conducted without external funding, and the investigators had no disclosures.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Nadkarni D et al. AES 2019. Abstract 1.29.

BALTIMORE – Abnormal findings on overnight continuous EEG in patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent epilepsy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. In addition, a positive family history of febrile seizures also is associated with an increased risk of epilepsy in this population.

The literature suggests that the prevalence of epilepsy in patients with ASD ranges from 5% to 40%. This broad range may result from the heterogeneity of epilepsy risk factors among patients with ASD. These risk factors include intellectual disability, age, and syndromic forms of ASD such as tuberous sclerosis complex. Regardless of whether they have epilepsy, approximately 60% of patients with ASD have EEG abnormalities. The prognostic implications of these abnormalities are uncertain.
 

Investigators reviewed patients’ charts retrospectively

Divya Nadkarni, MD, a neurologist at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, and colleagues sought to clarify the relationship between risk factors such as EEG abnormalities and subsequent epilepsy in patients with ASD. They retrospectively identified patients who were followed jointly at UCLA and at Pediatric Minds, a neurodevelopmental clinic in Torrance, Calif. Eligible patients had a diagnosis of ASD, based on criteria from DSM-IV, DSM-5, or the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule. In addition, patients had overnight, continuous video EEG evaluation and a minimum follow-up of 1 week after EEG. Patients with a history of epilepsy before the initial EEG evaluation were excluded. Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues collected clinical and electrographic data by chart review.

The study’s primary outcome was time to onset of epilepsy. Among the variables that the investigators analyzed were EEG abnormalities, which they defined as focal slowing or generalized or focal epileptiform discharges. The other variables were history of febrile seizures, family history of epilepsy, family history of febrile seizures, and family history of ASD. Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues analyzed the data using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models.

In all, 164 patients met the study’s inclusion criteria. The population’s median age at the initial EEG evaluation was 4.5 years. The median follow-up after this evaluation was 2.4 years. The investigators found 63 patients (38.4%) with abnormal EEGs, and 18 patients (11%) subsequently developed epilepsy after a median of 1.9 years.
 

Family history of febrile seizures was associated with time to epilepsy onset

The time to epilepsy onset was associated with abnormalities on the initial overnight continuous EEG. The hazard ratio of epilepsy among patients with EEG abnormalities was 8.0. Approximately one-third of patients with EEG abnormalities developed subsequent epilepsy, compared with approximately 5% of patients without EEG abnormalities, said Dr. Nadkarni.

In addition, time to epilepsy onset was independently associated with a positive family history of febrile seizures. This finding was unexpected, said Dr. Nadkarni. The hazard ratio of epilepsy among patients with a positive family history of febrile seizures was 12.6.

The patient’s own history of febrile seizures was not associated with time to epilepsy onset. One potential explanation for this result is that it is difficult to distinguish between febrile seizure and seizure with fever in the general pediatric population. Making this distinction in children with ASD, who may have atypical febrile seizures, might be still more difficult, said Dr. Nadkarni.
 

Time for guideline updates?

“Statements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Neurology, and the Child Neurology Society do not currently recommend routine EEG screening for all children with ASD,” said Dr. Nadkarni. Investigators are suggesting that the guidelines should be reevaluated, however. “Research shows that EEG abnormalities, particularly epileptiform abnormalities, are associated with worse outcome, in terms of developmental and adaptive functioning. EEG endophenotypes in ASD are starting to be elucidated ... That’s one reason to consider EEG screening.” Furthermore, preliminary connectivity research suggests that EEG screening of high-risk siblings of children with ASD may predict the development of ASD.

The small cohort and retrospective design were among the study’s limitations, said Dr. Nadkarni. Some patients were lost to follow-up, and some data were missing from patients’ charts.

“In our opinion, further study – ideally, a prospective, observational cohort study – might be warranted to determine whether overnight continuous EEG monitoring might be useful as a screening tool for epilepsy in patients with ASD,” Dr. Nadkarni concluded.

The study was conducted without external funding, and the investigators had no disclosures.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Nadkarni D et al. AES 2019. Abstract 1.29.

BALTIMORE – Abnormal findings on overnight continuous EEG in patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent epilepsy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. In addition, a positive family history of febrile seizures also is associated with an increased risk of epilepsy in this population.

The literature suggests that the prevalence of epilepsy in patients with ASD ranges from 5% to 40%. This broad range may result from the heterogeneity of epilepsy risk factors among patients with ASD. These risk factors include intellectual disability, age, and syndromic forms of ASD such as tuberous sclerosis complex. Regardless of whether they have epilepsy, approximately 60% of patients with ASD have EEG abnormalities. The prognostic implications of these abnormalities are uncertain.
 

Investigators reviewed patients’ charts retrospectively

Divya Nadkarni, MD, a neurologist at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, and colleagues sought to clarify the relationship between risk factors such as EEG abnormalities and subsequent epilepsy in patients with ASD. They retrospectively identified patients who were followed jointly at UCLA and at Pediatric Minds, a neurodevelopmental clinic in Torrance, Calif. Eligible patients had a diagnosis of ASD, based on criteria from DSM-IV, DSM-5, or the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule. In addition, patients had overnight, continuous video EEG evaluation and a minimum follow-up of 1 week after EEG. Patients with a history of epilepsy before the initial EEG evaluation were excluded. Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues collected clinical and electrographic data by chart review.

The study’s primary outcome was time to onset of epilepsy. Among the variables that the investigators analyzed were EEG abnormalities, which they defined as focal slowing or generalized or focal epileptiform discharges. The other variables were history of febrile seizures, family history of epilepsy, family history of febrile seizures, and family history of ASD. Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues analyzed the data using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models.

In all, 164 patients met the study’s inclusion criteria. The population’s median age at the initial EEG evaluation was 4.5 years. The median follow-up after this evaluation was 2.4 years. The investigators found 63 patients (38.4%) with abnormal EEGs, and 18 patients (11%) subsequently developed epilepsy after a median of 1.9 years.
 

Family history of febrile seizures was associated with time to epilepsy onset

The time to epilepsy onset was associated with abnormalities on the initial overnight continuous EEG. The hazard ratio of epilepsy among patients with EEG abnormalities was 8.0. Approximately one-third of patients with EEG abnormalities developed subsequent epilepsy, compared with approximately 5% of patients without EEG abnormalities, said Dr. Nadkarni.

In addition, time to epilepsy onset was independently associated with a positive family history of febrile seizures. This finding was unexpected, said Dr. Nadkarni. The hazard ratio of epilepsy among patients with a positive family history of febrile seizures was 12.6.

The patient’s own history of febrile seizures was not associated with time to epilepsy onset. One potential explanation for this result is that it is difficult to distinguish between febrile seizure and seizure with fever in the general pediatric population. Making this distinction in children with ASD, who may have atypical febrile seizures, might be still more difficult, said Dr. Nadkarni.
 

Time for guideline updates?

“Statements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Neurology, and the Child Neurology Society do not currently recommend routine EEG screening for all children with ASD,” said Dr. Nadkarni. Investigators are suggesting that the guidelines should be reevaluated, however. “Research shows that EEG abnormalities, particularly epileptiform abnormalities, are associated with worse outcome, in terms of developmental and adaptive functioning. EEG endophenotypes in ASD are starting to be elucidated ... That’s one reason to consider EEG screening.” Furthermore, preliminary connectivity research suggests that EEG screening of high-risk siblings of children with ASD may predict the development of ASD.

The small cohort and retrospective design were among the study’s limitations, said Dr. Nadkarni. Some patients were lost to follow-up, and some data were missing from patients’ charts.

“In our opinion, further study – ideally, a prospective, observational cohort study – might be warranted to determine whether overnight continuous EEG monitoring might be useful as a screening tool for epilepsy in patients with ASD,” Dr. Nadkarni concluded.

The study was conducted without external funding, and the investigators had no disclosures.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Nadkarni D et al. AES 2019. Abstract 1.29.

Despite national legislation that raised the minimum age of sale for tobacco to 21 in the United States, policies to curb tobacco use fell short in 2019, according to a report on federal and state policies.

istockphoto.com

In its annual “State of Tobacco Control” report, the American Lung Association called out the federal government for issuing “inadequate guidance on flavored e-cigarettes that leaves thousands of flavored e-cigarettes on the market.” The organization urged Congress and the Food and Drug Administration “to eliminate all flavored tobacco products from the marketplace, including menthol cigarettes, flavored cigars, and e-cigarettes,” in 2020.

“Flavored tobacco products cause kids to become hooked, and now more than one in four teens (27.5%) are vaping, a staggering 135% increase over the past 2 years,” the association wrote in a news release. Federal guidance on Jan. 2, 2020, permits the sale of flavored e-cigarettes that do not use cartridges. This guidance represented a reversal after officials said in a prior announcement that regulators would “clear the market” of flavored e-cigarettes.

Graphic warning labels

The report also asked the FDA to reject product marketing applications that fail to meet public health standards, calls on the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to “clarify and ensure that all tobacco users have access to a comprehensive tobacco cessation benefit,” and urges Congress to increase federal funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Office on Smoking and Health to help stop youth e-cigarette use.

“Raising the federal minimum age of sale to 21, which took effect immediately on Dec. 30, was an important first step forward,” the report says. “The American Lung Association successfully advocated for the legislation to be comprehensive and to close state exemptions, such as for military personnel, while also not limiting states from pursuing stronger protections. Additional rules from FDA to provide guidance on the law’s implementation are forthcoming.”

The FDA is expected to release graphic warning labels for cigarette packs in March. After legal setbacks to the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, which required the FDA to ensure all cigarette packs had graphic warning labels by 2011, a judgment “compels FDA to release final graphic warnings by March 15, 2020, with the warning labels appearing on all cigarette packs by June of 2021,” the American Lung Association report said.

“While the American Lung Association recognizes the federal government with an A grade for passage of a strong federal Tobacco 21 law [raising the minimum age of purchase], it also earns an F for its failure to comprehensively oversee tobacco products,” said Harold P. Wimmer, national president and CEO of the American Lung Association, in the news release. “Without meaningful actions by the federal government, the health and the future of our nation’s children are being compromised.”

The federal government received an F for its tobacco tax policies, a D for cessation coverage, and an A for its mass media campaigns, “Tips from Former Smokers” and “The Real Cost.”

Grading states

In addition, the report graded each state and the District of Columbia in terms of funding for tobacco prevention programs, strength of smoke-free workplace laws, level of state tobacco taxes, and coverage of and access to services to quit tobacco. None scored all A’s, but California, the District of Columbia, Maine, New York, and Vermont ranked the highest. Alabama, Mississippi, and North Carolina, on the other hand, received all F’s.

In November, Massachusetts became the first state to prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, and more states should follow suit, according to the association.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Despite national legislation that raised the minimum age of sale for tobacco to 21 in the United States, policies to curb tobacco use fell short in 2019, according to a report on federal and state policies.

istockphoto.com

In its annual “State of Tobacco Control” report, the American Lung Association called out the federal government for issuing “inadequate guidance on flavored e-cigarettes that leaves thousands of flavored e-cigarettes on the market.” The organization urged Congress and the Food and Drug Administration “to eliminate all flavored tobacco products from the marketplace, including menthol cigarettes, flavored cigars, and e-cigarettes,” in 2020.

“Flavored tobacco products cause kids to become hooked, and now more than one in four teens (27.5%) are vaping, a staggering 135% increase over the past 2 years,” the association wrote in a news release. Federal guidance on Jan. 2, 2020, permits the sale of flavored e-cigarettes that do not use cartridges. This guidance represented a reversal after officials said in a prior announcement that regulators would “clear the market” of flavored e-cigarettes.

Graphic warning labels

The report also asked the FDA to reject product marketing applications that fail to meet public health standards, calls on the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to “clarify and ensure that all tobacco users have access to a comprehensive tobacco cessation benefit,” and urges Congress to increase federal funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Office on Smoking and Health to help stop youth e-cigarette use.

“Raising the federal minimum age of sale to 21, which took effect immediately on Dec. 30, was an important first step forward,” the report says. “The American Lung Association successfully advocated for the legislation to be comprehensive and to close state exemptions, such as for military personnel, while also not limiting states from pursuing stronger protections. Additional rules from FDA to provide guidance on the law’s implementation are forthcoming.”

The FDA is expected to release graphic warning labels for cigarette packs in March. After legal setbacks to the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, which required the FDA to ensure all cigarette packs had graphic warning labels by 2011, a judgment “compels FDA to release final graphic warnings by March 15, 2020, with the warning labels appearing on all cigarette packs by June of 2021,” the American Lung Association report said.

“While the American Lung Association recognizes the federal government with an A grade for passage of a strong federal Tobacco 21 law [raising the minimum age of purchase], it also earns an F for its failure to comprehensively oversee tobacco products,” said Harold P. Wimmer, national president and CEO of the American Lung Association, in the news release. “Without meaningful actions by the federal government, the health and the future of our nation’s children are being compromised.”

The federal government received an F for its tobacco tax policies, a D for cessation coverage, and an A for its mass media campaigns, “Tips from Former Smokers” and “The Real Cost.”

Grading states

In addition, the report graded each state and the District of Columbia in terms of funding for tobacco prevention programs, strength of smoke-free workplace laws, level of state tobacco taxes, and coverage of and access to services to quit tobacco. None scored all A’s, but California, the District of Columbia, Maine, New York, and Vermont ranked the highest. Alabama, Mississippi, and North Carolina, on the other hand, received all F’s.

In November, Massachusetts became the first state to prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, and more states should follow suit, according to the association.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Despite national legislation that raised the minimum age of sale for tobacco to 21 in the United States, policies to curb tobacco use fell short in 2019, according to a report on federal and state policies.

istockphoto.com

In its annual “State of Tobacco Control” report, the American Lung Association called out the federal government for issuing “inadequate guidance on flavored e-cigarettes that leaves thousands of flavored e-cigarettes on the market.” The organization urged Congress and the Food and Drug Administration “to eliminate all flavored tobacco products from the marketplace, including menthol cigarettes, flavored cigars, and e-cigarettes,” in 2020.

“Flavored tobacco products cause kids to become hooked, and now more than one in four teens (27.5%) are vaping, a staggering 135% increase over the past 2 years,” the association wrote in a news release. Federal guidance on Jan. 2, 2020, permits the sale of flavored e-cigarettes that do not use cartridges. This guidance represented a reversal after officials said in a prior announcement that regulators would “clear the market” of flavored e-cigarettes.

Graphic warning labels

The report also asked the FDA to reject product marketing applications that fail to meet public health standards, calls on the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to “clarify and ensure that all tobacco users have access to a comprehensive tobacco cessation benefit,” and urges Congress to increase federal funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Office on Smoking and Health to help stop youth e-cigarette use.

“Raising the federal minimum age of sale to 21, which took effect immediately on Dec. 30, was an important first step forward,” the report says. “The American Lung Association successfully advocated for the legislation to be comprehensive and to close state exemptions, such as for military personnel, while also not limiting states from pursuing stronger protections. Additional rules from FDA to provide guidance on the law’s implementation are forthcoming.”

The FDA is expected to release graphic warning labels for cigarette packs in March. After legal setbacks to the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, which required the FDA to ensure all cigarette packs had graphic warning labels by 2011, a judgment “compels FDA to release final graphic warnings by March 15, 2020, with the warning labels appearing on all cigarette packs by June of 2021,” the American Lung Association report said.

“While the American Lung Association recognizes the federal government with an A grade for passage of a strong federal Tobacco 21 law [raising the minimum age of purchase], it also earns an F for its failure to comprehensively oversee tobacco products,” said Harold P. Wimmer, national president and CEO of the American Lung Association, in the news release. “Without meaningful actions by the federal government, the health and the future of our nation’s children are being compromised.”

The federal government received an F for its tobacco tax policies, a D for cessation coverage, and an A for its mass media campaigns, “Tips from Former Smokers” and “The Real Cost.”

Grading states

In addition, the report graded each state and the District of Columbia in terms of funding for tobacco prevention programs, strength of smoke-free workplace laws, level of state tobacco taxes, and coverage of and access to services to quit tobacco. None scored all A’s, but California, the District of Columbia, Maine, New York, and Vermont ranked the highest. Alabama, Mississippi, and North Carolina, on the other hand, received all F’s.

In November, Massachusetts became the first state to prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, and more states should follow suit, according to the association.

jremaly@mdedge.com

When it comes to state funding for tobacco prevention and cessation, the American Lung Association grades on a curve. It did not help.

The ALA gave failing grades to 43 states in its new State of Tobacco Control report, along with three A’s, one C, and four D’s, despite a grading formula that passed anything better than a 50%.

Each state’s annual funding for tobacco prevention and cessation was calculated and then compared with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommended spending level. That percentage became the grade, with any level of funding at 80% or more of the CDC’s recommendation getting an A and anything below 50% getting an F, the ALA explained.

The three A’s went to Alaska – which spent $10.14 million, or 99.4% of the CDC-recommended $10.2 million – California (96.0%), and Maine (83.5%). The lowest levels of spending came from Georgia, which spend just 2.8% of the CDC’s recommendation of $106 million, and Missouri, which spent 3.0%, the ALA reported.

States’ grades were generally better in the four other areas of tobacco-control policy: There were 24 A’s and 9 F’s for smoke-free air laws, 1 A and 35 F’s for tobacco excise taxes, 3 A’s and 17 F’s for access to cessation treatment, and 10 A’s and 30 F’s for laws to raise the tobacco sales age to 21 years, the ALA said in the report.

Despite an overall grade of F, the federal government managed to earn some praise in that last area: “In what could only be described as unimaginable even 2 years ago, in December 2019, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to raise the minimum age of sale for tobacco products to 21,” the ALA said.

The federal government was strongly criticized on the subject of e-cigarettes. “The Trump Administration failed to prioritize public health over the tobacco industry with its Jan. 2, 2020, announcement that will leave thousands of flavored e-cigarettes on the market,” the ALA said, while concluding that the rising use of e-cigarettes in recent years “is a real-world demonstration of the failure of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to properly oversee all tobacco products. … This failure places the lung health and lives of Americans at risk.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

When it comes to state funding for tobacco prevention and cessation, the American Lung Association grades on a curve. It did not help.

The ALA gave failing grades to 43 states in its new State of Tobacco Control report, along with three A’s, one C, and four D’s, despite a grading formula that passed anything better than a 50%.

Each state’s annual funding for tobacco prevention and cessation was calculated and then compared with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommended spending level. That percentage became the grade, with any level of funding at 80% or more of the CDC’s recommendation getting an A and anything below 50% getting an F, the ALA explained.

The three A’s went to Alaska – which spent $10.14 million, or 99.4% of the CDC-recommended $10.2 million – California (96.0%), and Maine (83.5%). The lowest levels of spending came from Georgia, which spend just 2.8% of the CDC’s recommendation of $106 million, and Missouri, which spent 3.0%, the ALA reported.

States’ grades were generally better in the four other areas of tobacco-control policy: There were 24 A’s and 9 F’s for smoke-free air laws, 1 A and 35 F’s for tobacco excise taxes, 3 A’s and 17 F’s for access to cessation treatment, and 10 A’s and 30 F’s for laws to raise the tobacco sales age to 21 years, the ALA said in the report.

Despite an overall grade of F, the federal government managed to earn some praise in that last area: “In what could only be described as unimaginable even 2 years ago, in December 2019, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to raise the minimum age of sale for tobacco products to 21,” the ALA said.

The federal government was strongly criticized on the subject of e-cigarettes. “The Trump Administration failed to prioritize public health over the tobacco industry with its Jan. 2, 2020, announcement that will leave thousands of flavored e-cigarettes on the market,” the ALA said, while concluding that the rising use of e-cigarettes in recent years “is a real-world demonstration of the failure of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to properly oversee all tobacco products. … This failure places the lung health and lives of Americans at risk.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

When it comes to state funding for tobacco prevention and cessation, the American Lung Association grades on a curve. It did not help.

The ALA gave failing grades to 43 states in its new State of Tobacco Control report, along with three A’s, one C, and four D’s, despite a grading formula that passed anything better than a 50%.

Each state’s annual funding for tobacco prevention and cessation was calculated and then compared with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommended spending level. That percentage became the grade, with any level of funding at 80% or more of the CDC’s recommendation getting an A and anything below 50% getting an F, the ALA explained.

The three A’s went to Alaska – which spent $10.14 million, or 99.4% of the CDC-recommended $10.2 million – California (96.0%), and Maine (83.5%). The lowest levels of spending came from Georgia, which spend just 2.8% of the CDC’s recommendation of $106 million, and Missouri, which spent 3.0%, the ALA reported.

States’ grades were generally better in the four other areas of tobacco-control policy: There were 24 A’s and 9 F’s for smoke-free air laws, 1 A and 35 F’s for tobacco excise taxes, 3 A’s and 17 F’s for access to cessation treatment, and 10 A’s and 30 F’s for laws to raise the tobacco sales age to 21 years, the ALA said in the report.

Despite an overall grade of F, the federal government managed to earn some praise in that last area: “In what could only be described as unimaginable even 2 years ago, in December 2019, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to raise the minimum age of sale for tobacco products to 21,” the ALA said.

The federal government was strongly criticized on the subject of e-cigarettes. “The Trump Administration failed to prioritize public health over the tobacco industry with its Jan. 2, 2020, announcement that will leave thousands of flavored e-cigarettes on the market,” the ALA said, while concluding that the rising use of e-cigarettes in recent years “is a real-world demonstration of the failure of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to properly oversee all tobacco products. … This failure places the lung health and lives of Americans at risk.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

In most cases, a biopsy is no longer required to diagnose celiac disease in children, according to new guidance from the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN). The authors recommend that the diagnosis be established with a two-stage blood test instead of an endoscopy, which children often find distressing.

The guidance was published in the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. The document is an update of ESPGHAN’s 2012 guidance.

About half of children with suspected celiac disease undergo a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis. By reducing the number of biopsies, and the anesthesia required to perform them, the new guidelines could reduce European health care costs.

Steffen Husby, MD, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, and colleagues recommend testing for total IgA and anti-intestinal transglutaminase 2 (TGA-IgA) antibodies as initial screening in children with suspected celiac disease. An IgG-based test is indicated only when total IgA is low or undetectable, according to the authors. Physicians should refer children with positive results to a pediatric gastroenterologist. If the level of TGA-IgA is 10 or more times the upper limit of normal, and the family agrees, the physician may diagnose celiac disease without a biopsy, provided that endomysial antibodies test positive in a second blood sample, according to the guidance. For children with a positive TGA-IgA level of less than 10 times the upper limit of normal, however, at least four biopsies from the distal duodenum and at least one from the bulb are required to establish the diagnosis.

Physicians can diagnose celiac disease in children with no symptoms without the need for a biopsy using the same criteria as they use for symptomatic children, wrote Dr. Husby and colleagues. Clinicians, parents, and, when appropriate, children should participate in the decision about whether to perform a biopsy.

Celiac disease is the most prevalent food-related chronic disease in European children, but as much as 80% of children with celiac disease are undiagnosed. The prevalence of celiac disease is increasing, and undiagnosed children with this disease are at risk of nutritional and developmental problems, as well as long-term health complications. Although celiac disease is easy to detect and treat, 10-13 years may elapse between symptom onset and the time of diagnosis. The new guidelines are intended to facilitate diagnosis and increase its accuracy, thus enabling earlier diagnosis and improved detection, according to ESPGHAN.

“These new guidelines mean that more than half of all children being investigated for celiac disease will no longer need to have an invasive biopsy,” said Luisa Mearin Manrique, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics at Leiden (the Netherlands) University and senior author of the guidelines, in a press release. “This is a big step forward in our mission to ensure that children can be diagnosed and effectively treated for celiac disease. It is scandalous that so many children go so long, often up to 10 years, without diagnosis. Removing the need for biopsy in order to achieve diagnosis will reduce the stresses associated with such an invasive procedure and mean that diagnoses are quicker and cheaper for health care systems.”

No conflicts of interest were reported.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Husby S et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2020;70(1):141-56.

In most cases, a biopsy is no longer required to diagnose celiac disease in children, according to new guidance from the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN). The authors recommend that the diagnosis be established with a two-stage blood test instead of an endoscopy, which children often find distressing.

The guidance was published in the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. The document is an update of ESPGHAN’s 2012 guidance.

About half of children with suspected celiac disease undergo a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis. By reducing the number of biopsies, and the anesthesia required to perform them, the new guidelines could reduce European health care costs.

Steffen Husby, MD, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, and colleagues recommend testing for total IgA and anti-intestinal transglutaminase 2 (TGA-IgA) antibodies as initial screening in children with suspected celiac disease. An IgG-based test is indicated only when total IgA is low or undetectable, according to the authors. Physicians should refer children with positive results to a pediatric gastroenterologist. If the level of TGA-IgA is 10 or more times the upper limit of normal, and the family agrees, the physician may diagnose celiac disease without a biopsy, provided that endomysial antibodies test positive in a second blood sample, according to the guidance. For children with a positive TGA-IgA level of less than 10 times the upper limit of normal, however, at least four biopsies from the distal duodenum and at least one from the bulb are required to establish the diagnosis.

Physicians can diagnose celiac disease in children with no symptoms without the need for a biopsy using the same criteria as they use for symptomatic children, wrote Dr. Husby and colleagues. Clinicians, parents, and, when appropriate, children should participate in the decision about whether to perform a biopsy.

Celiac disease is the most prevalent food-related chronic disease in European children, but as much as 80% of children with celiac disease are undiagnosed. The prevalence of celiac disease is increasing, and undiagnosed children with this disease are at risk of nutritional and developmental problems, as well as long-term health complications. Although celiac disease is easy to detect and treat, 10-13 years may elapse between symptom onset and the time of diagnosis. The new guidelines are intended to facilitate diagnosis and increase its accuracy, thus enabling earlier diagnosis and improved detection, according to ESPGHAN.

“These new guidelines mean that more than half of all children being investigated for celiac disease will no longer need to have an invasive biopsy,” said Luisa Mearin Manrique, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics at Leiden (the Netherlands) University and senior author of the guidelines, in a press release. “This is a big step forward in our mission to ensure that children can be diagnosed and effectively treated for celiac disease. It is scandalous that so many children go so long, often up to 10 years, without diagnosis. Removing the need for biopsy in order to achieve diagnosis will reduce the stresses associated with such an invasive procedure and mean that diagnoses are quicker and cheaper for health care systems.”

No conflicts of interest were reported.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Husby S et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2020;70(1):141-56.

In most cases, a biopsy is no longer required to diagnose celiac disease in children, according to new guidance from the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN). The authors recommend that the diagnosis be established with a two-stage blood test instead of an endoscopy, which children often find distressing.

The guidance was published in the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. The document is an update of ESPGHAN’s 2012 guidance.

About half of children with suspected celiac disease undergo a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis. By reducing the number of biopsies, and the anesthesia required to perform them, the new guidelines could reduce European health care costs.

Steffen Husby, MD, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, and colleagues recommend testing for total IgA and anti-intestinal transglutaminase 2 (TGA-IgA) antibodies as initial screening in children with suspected celiac disease. An IgG-based test is indicated only when total IgA is low or undetectable, according to the authors. Physicians should refer children with positive results to a pediatric gastroenterologist. If the level of TGA-IgA is 10 or more times the upper limit of normal, and the family agrees, the physician may diagnose celiac disease without a biopsy, provided that endomysial antibodies test positive in a second blood sample, according to the guidance. For children with a positive TGA-IgA level of less than 10 times the upper limit of normal, however, at least four biopsies from the distal duodenum and at least one from the bulb are required to establish the diagnosis.

Physicians can diagnose celiac disease in children with no symptoms without the need for a biopsy using the same criteria as they use for symptomatic children, wrote Dr. Husby and colleagues. Clinicians, parents, and, when appropriate, children should participate in the decision about whether to perform a biopsy.

Celiac disease is the most prevalent food-related chronic disease in European children, but as much as 80% of children with celiac disease are undiagnosed. The prevalence of celiac disease is increasing, and undiagnosed children with this disease are at risk of nutritional and developmental problems, as well as long-term health complications. Although celiac disease is easy to detect and treat, 10-13 years may elapse between symptom onset and the time of diagnosis. The new guidelines are intended to facilitate diagnosis and increase its accuracy, thus enabling earlier diagnosis and improved detection, according to ESPGHAN.

“These new guidelines mean that more than half of all children being investigated for celiac disease will no longer need to have an invasive biopsy,” said Luisa Mearin Manrique, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics at Leiden (the Netherlands) University and senior author of the guidelines, in a press release. “This is a big step forward in our mission to ensure that children can be diagnosed and effectively treated for celiac disease. It is scandalous that so many children go so long, often up to 10 years, without diagnosis. Removing the need for biopsy in order to achieve diagnosis will reduce the stresses associated with such an invasive procedure and mean that diagnoses are quicker and cheaper for health care systems.”

No conflicts of interest were reported.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Husby S et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2020;70(1):141-56.

ORLANDO – Do you have pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) flares despite complying with treatment, or those who have a new rash in an unusual area? Consider patch testing to assess whether they have allergic contact dermatitis.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

“Of the patients who are sent to me by local pediatric dermatologists, 50% of them are positive” for allergens, said Jonathan H. Zippin, MD, PhD, director of the contact, occupational, and photodermatitis service at Cornell University, New York.

Speaking at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic, and Surgical Conference, Dr. Zippin noted the prevalence of allergen sensitization is between 13% and 25% among children who are asymptomatic, while the prevalence of sensitization to at least one allergen among children with suspected allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is between 25% and 96%. In 2014, a study from the National American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) showed that of 883 children who were patch tested, 56.7% had at least one relevant positive patch test (RPPT) result.

“The take-home message here is that pediatric contact dermatitis is common, much more common than a lot of people realize,” Dr. Zippin said.

He described three common scenarios to keep in mind: a worsening rash, a new rash, and failure of a rash to improve after the patient avoids all of his or her positive allergens.

When a rash worsens, patch testing is likely to offer answers. In an analysis of 1,142 patients with suspected ACD aged 18 years or younger (mean age, 10.5 years; 64% female) in the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry study database, 65% had at least one positive patch test, and 48% had at least 1 RPPT (Dermatitis 2016; 27[5] 293-302).

But not all patch testing is the same: The study also found that 24% of the RPPT cases would have been missed if assessed with the T.R.U.E. TEST compared with extended patch testing. If a T.R.U.E. TEST fails to explain generalized atopic dermatitis, the patient should be sent for more comprehensive testing where available, Dr. Zippin advised.

Pediatric patients also have unique allergens clinicians should consider. In the same study, children had a number of allergens similar to those of adults as reported in previous studies, such as nickel, cobalt, and neomycin. However, propylene glycol and cocamidopropyl betaine were allergens identified as unique to the pediatric population.

Another study looking at the same group of patients found that compared with children who did not have AD, children with AD had 7.4 times higher odds of having an RPPT to cocamidopropyl betaine, 7.6 times higher odds of having an RPPT to parthenolide, 5.3 times higher odds of having an RPPT to tixocortol pivalate, 4.2 times higher odds of having an RPPT to wool alcohols, and 4 times higher odds of having an RPPT to lanolin (JAMA Dermatology 2017;153[8]:765-70).

All of these are components of topical medicaments used to treat AD, “either components of emollients that we recommend, or components of steroids that we recommend,” Dr. Zippin pointed out.

One of these allergens could be the culprit when a child develops a new rash but there are no new apparent changes in products, exposures, and activities. Lanolin, also called wool grease, is used in many skin care products, for example. Dr. Zippin described the case of a 6-year-old girl with a history of AD, who presented with a new rash on her scalp and behind her ears, not explained by any obvious changes to products, exposures, or activities. Subsequent patch testing determined that the rash was caused by baby shampoo, which contained cocamidopropyl betaine, which is used in hypoallergenic products. The rash resolved after a different shampoo was used.

“Sometimes, we really have to be thinking when the rash is getting worse, is there something they’re being exposed to that might be an allergen?” Dr. Zippin said.

In patients who have avoided all their positive allergens but a rash has not improved, clinicians should consider systemic contact dermatitis (SCD). Patients can develop SCD through different types of exposures, including transepidermal, transmucosal, oral, intravenous, subcutaneous, intramuscular, inhalation, and implantation routes.

SCD also has a variety of presentations, including pompholyx/dyshidrosis/vesicular dermatitis, maculopapular eruption, chronic pruritus, exfoliative erythroderma/toxiderma, chronic urticaria, erythema multiforme and vasculitis, hyperkeratotic papules of the elbows, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, and pruritus ani, according to Dr. Zippin.

SCD should be considered when a patient has a positive patch test to an allergen that is known to cause SCD, and does not clear after avoiding cutaneous exposure to the allergen, Dr. Zippin advised.

Patients will most often develop SCD from plants and herbs, Dr. Zippin noted. Chrysanthemums and chamomile tea are common culprits for compositae allergy and can trigger SCD; other causes are Anacardiaceae, Balsam of Peru, and propolis. Metals (nickel, cobalt, gold, and chromium), medications (aminoglycosides, corticosteroids, and ethylenediamine), and other sources (formaldehyde, propylene glycol in frozen foods, gallates, and methylisothiazolinone) can cause SCD as well.

Methylisothiazolinone in particular is a very common sensitizer, Dr. Zippin said. “If you have a patient who is positive to this, it’s almost always the cause of their problem.”

Balsam of Peru is in a number of different foods, and patients who need to follow a diet free of Balsam of Peru should avoid a long list of foods including citrus; bakery goods; Danish pastry; candy; gum; spices such as cinnamon, cloves, vanilla, curry, allspice, anise, and ginger; spicy condiments such as ketchup, chili sauce, barbecue sauce; chili, pizza, and foods with red sauces; tomatoes; pickles; alcohol (wine, beer, gin, vermouth); tea (perfumed or flavored); tobacco; chocolate and ice cream; and soft drinks (cola or spiced soft drinks).

Patients starting a nickel-free diet should avoid soy, peanuts and other nuts, legumes, chocolate, cocoa, oats, fish, and whole wheat flours. Any elimination diet should last for 3 months but should at least be tried for 3-4 weeks, with gradual reintroduction of foods suspected as triggers once per week. Any type I allergies that are discovered or suspected can be referred to an allergist for allergen challenge and desensitization therapy.

For more information, Dr. Zippin recommended the American Contact Dermatitis Society website for more information.

Dr. Zippin reported that he is the founder and holds stock options at CEP Biotech; is on the medical advisory board and receives stock options from YouV Labs., is a paid consultant and performs industry-sponsored research for Pfizer, receives stock options from Regeneron, and is on the medical advisory board for Hoth Therapeutics Inc. He is on the board of directors for the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

ORLANDO – Do you have pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) flares despite complying with treatment, or those who have a new rash in an unusual area? Consider patch testing to assess whether they have allergic contact dermatitis.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

“Of the patients who are sent to me by local pediatric dermatologists, 50% of them are positive” for allergens, said Jonathan H. Zippin, MD, PhD, director of the contact, occupational, and photodermatitis service at Cornell University, New York.

Speaking at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic, and Surgical Conference, Dr. Zippin noted the prevalence of allergen sensitization is between 13% and 25% among children who are asymptomatic, while the prevalence of sensitization to at least one allergen among children with suspected allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is between 25% and 96%. In 2014, a study from the National American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) showed that of 883 children who were patch tested, 56.7% had at least one relevant positive patch test (RPPT) result.

“The take-home message here is that pediatric contact dermatitis is common, much more common than a lot of people realize,” Dr. Zippin said.

He described three common scenarios to keep in mind: a worsening rash, a new rash, and failure of a rash to improve after the patient avoids all of his or her positive allergens.

When a rash worsens, patch testing is likely to offer answers. In an analysis of 1,142 patients with suspected ACD aged 18 years or younger (mean age, 10.5 years; 64% female) in the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry study database, 65% had at least one positive patch test, and 48% had at least 1 RPPT (Dermatitis 2016; 27[5] 293-302).

But not all patch testing is the same: The study also found that 24% of the RPPT cases would have been missed if assessed with the T.R.U.E. TEST compared with extended patch testing. If a T.R.U.E. TEST fails to explain generalized atopic dermatitis, the patient should be sent for more comprehensive testing where available, Dr. Zippin advised.

Pediatric patients also have unique allergens clinicians should consider. In the same study, children had a number of allergens similar to those of adults as reported in previous studies, such as nickel, cobalt, and neomycin. However, propylene glycol and cocamidopropyl betaine were allergens identified as unique to the pediatric population.

Another study looking at the same group of patients found that compared with children who did not have AD, children with AD had 7.4 times higher odds of having an RPPT to cocamidopropyl betaine, 7.6 times higher odds of having an RPPT to parthenolide, 5.3 times higher odds of having an RPPT to tixocortol pivalate, 4.2 times higher odds of having an RPPT to wool alcohols, and 4 times higher odds of having an RPPT to lanolin (JAMA Dermatology 2017;153[8]:765-70).

All of these are components of topical medicaments used to treat AD, “either components of emollients that we recommend, or components of steroids that we recommend,” Dr. Zippin pointed out.

One of these allergens could be the culprit when a child develops a new rash but there are no new apparent changes in products, exposures, and activities. Lanolin, also called wool grease, is used in many skin care products, for example. Dr. Zippin described the case of a 6-year-old girl with a history of AD, who presented with a new rash on her scalp and behind her ears, not explained by any obvious changes to products, exposures, or activities. Subsequent patch testing determined that the rash was caused by baby shampoo, which contained cocamidopropyl betaine, which is used in hypoallergenic products. The rash resolved after a different shampoo was used.

“Sometimes, we really have to be thinking when the rash is getting worse, is there something they’re being exposed to that might be an allergen?” Dr. Zippin said.

In patients who have avoided all their positive allergens but a rash has not improved, clinicians should consider systemic contact dermatitis (SCD). Patients can develop SCD through different types of exposures, including transepidermal, transmucosal, oral, intravenous, subcutaneous, intramuscular, inhalation, and implantation routes.

SCD also has a variety of presentations, including pompholyx/dyshidrosis/vesicular dermatitis, maculopapular eruption, chronic pruritus, exfoliative erythroderma/toxiderma, chronic urticaria, erythema multiforme and vasculitis, hyperkeratotic papules of the elbows, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, and pruritus ani, according to Dr. Zippin.

SCD should be considered when a patient has a positive patch test to an allergen that is known to cause SCD, and does not clear after avoiding cutaneous exposure to the allergen, Dr. Zippin advised.

Patients will most often develop SCD from plants and herbs, Dr. Zippin noted. Chrysanthemums and chamomile tea are common culprits for compositae allergy and can trigger SCD; other causes are Anacardiaceae, Balsam of Peru, and propolis. Metals (nickel, cobalt, gold, and chromium), medications (aminoglycosides, corticosteroids, and ethylenediamine), and other sources (formaldehyde, propylene glycol in frozen foods, gallates, and methylisothiazolinone) can cause SCD as well.

Methylisothiazolinone in particular is a very common sensitizer, Dr. Zippin said. “If you have a patient who is positive to this, it’s almost always the cause of their problem.”

Balsam of Peru is in a number of different foods, and patients who need to follow a diet free of Balsam of Peru should avoid a long list of foods including citrus; bakery goods; Danish pastry; candy; gum; spices such as cinnamon, cloves, vanilla, curry, allspice, anise, and ginger; spicy condiments such as ketchup, chili sauce, barbecue sauce; chili, pizza, and foods with red sauces; tomatoes; pickles; alcohol (wine, beer, gin, vermouth); tea (perfumed or flavored); tobacco; chocolate and ice cream; and soft drinks (cola or spiced soft drinks).

Patients starting a nickel-free diet should avoid soy, peanuts and other nuts, legumes, chocolate, cocoa, oats, fish, and whole wheat flours. Any elimination diet should last for 3 months but should at least be tried for 3-4 weeks, with gradual reintroduction of foods suspected as triggers once per week. Any type I allergies that are discovered or suspected can be referred to an allergist for allergen challenge and desensitization therapy.

For more information, Dr. Zippin recommended the American Contact Dermatitis Society website for more information.

Dr. Zippin reported that he is the founder and holds stock options at CEP Biotech; is on the medical advisory board and receives stock options from YouV Labs., is a paid consultant and performs industry-sponsored research for Pfizer, receives stock options from Regeneron, and is on the medical advisory board for Hoth Therapeutics Inc. He is on the board of directors for the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

ORLANDO – Do you have pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) flares despite complying with treatment, or those who have a new rash in an unusual area? Consider patch testing to assess whether they have allergic contact dermatitis.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

“Of the patients who are sent to me by local pediatric dermatologists, 50% of them are positive” for allergens, said Jonathan H. Zippin, MD, PhD, director of the contact, occupational, and photodermatitis service at Cornell University, New York.

Speaking at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic, and Surgical Conference, Dr. Zippin noted the prevalence of allergen sensitization is between 13% and 25% among children who are asymptomatic, while the prevalence of sensitization to at least one allergen among children with suspected allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is between 25% and 96%. In 2014, a study from the National American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) showed that of 883 children who were patch tested, 56.7% had at least one relevant positive patch test (RPPT) result.

“The take-home message here is that pediatric contact dermatitis is common, much more common than a lot of people realize,” Dr. Zippin said.

He described three common scenarios to keep in mind: a worsening rash, a new rash, and failure of a rash to improve after the patient avoids all of his or her positive allergens.

When a rash worsens, patch testing is likely to offer answers. In an analysis of 1,142 patients with suspected ACD aged 18 years or younger (mean age, 10.5 years; 64% female) in the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry study database, 65% had at least one positive patch test, and 48% had at least 1 RPPT (Dermatitis 2016; 27[5] 293-302).

But not all patch testing is the same: The study also found that 24% of the RPPT cases would have been missed if assessed with the T.R.U.E. TEST compared with extended patch testing. If a T.R.U.E. TEST fails to explain generalized atopic dermatitis, the patient should be sent for more comprehensive testing where available, Dr. Zippin advised.

Pediatric patients also have unique allergens clinicians should consider. In the same study, children had a number of allergens similar to those of adults as reported in previous studies, such as nickel, cobalt, and neomycin. However, propylene glycol and cocamidopropyl betaine were allergens identified as unique to the pediatric population.

Another study looking at the same group of patients found that compared with children who did not have AD, children with AD had 7.4 times higher odds of having an RPPT to cocamidopropyl betaine, 7.6 times higher odds of having an RPPT to parthenolide, 5.3 times higher odds of having an RPPT to tixocortol pivalate, 4.2 times higher odds of having an RPPT to wool alcohols, and 4 times higher odds of having an RPPT to lanolin (JAMA Dermatology 2017;153[8]:765-70).

All of these are components of topical medicaments used to treat AD, “either components of emollients that we recommend, or components of steroids that we recommend,” Dr. Zippin pointed out.

One of these allergens could be the culprit when a child develops a new rash but there are no new apparent changes in products, exposures, and activities. Lanolin, also called wool grease, is used in many skin care products, for example. Dr. Zippin described the case of a 6-year-old girl with a history of AD, who presented with a new rash on her scalp and behind her ears, not explained by any obvious changes to products, exposures, or activities. Subsequent patch testing determined that the rash was caused by baby shampoo, which contained cocamidopropyl betaine, which is used in hypoallergenic products. The rash resolved after a different shampoo was used.

“Sometimes, we really have to be thinking when the rash is getting worse, is there something they’re being exposed to that might be an allergen?” Dr. Zippin said.

In patients who have avoided all their positive allergens but a rash has not improved, clinicians should consider systemic contact dermatitis (SCD). Patients can develop SCD through different types of exposures, including transepidermal, transmucosal, oral, intravenous, subcutaneous, intramuscular, inhalation, and implantation routes.

SCD also has a variety of presentations, including pompholyx/dyshidrosis/vesicular dermatitis, maculopapular eruption, chronic pruritus, exfoliative erythroderma/toxiderma, chronic urticaria, erythema multiforme and vasculitis, hyperkeratotic papules of the elbows, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, and pruritus ani, according to Dr. Zippin.

SCD should be considered when a patient has a positive patch test to an allergen that is known to cause SCD, and does not clear after avoiding cutaneous exposure to the allergen, Dr. Zippin advised.

Patients will most often develop SCD from plants and herbs, Dr. Zippin noted. Chrysanthemums and chamomile tea are common culprits for compositae allergy and can trigger SCD; other causes are Anacardiaceae, Balsam of Peru, and propolis. Metals (nickel, cobalt, gold, and chromium), medications (aminoglycosides, corticosteroids, and ethylenediamine), and other sources (formaldehyde, propylene glycol in frozen foods, gallates, and methylisothiazolinone) can cause SCD as well.

Methylisothiazolinone in particular is a very common sensitizer, Dr. Zippin said. “If you have a patient who is positive to this, it’s almost always the cause of their problem.”

Balsam of Peru is in a number of different foods, and patients who need to follow a diet free of Balsam of Peru should avoid a long list of foods including citrus; bakery goods; Danish pastry; candy; gum; spices such as cinnamon, cloves, vanilla, curry, allspice, anise, and ginger; spicy condiments such as ketchup, chili sauce, barbecue sauce; chili, pizza, and foods with red sauces; tomatoes; pickles; alcohol (wine, beer, gin, vermouth); tea (perfumed or flavored); tobacco; chocolate and ice cream; and soft drinks (cola or spiced soft drinks).

Patients starting a nickel-free diet should avoid soy, peanuts and other nuts, legumes, chocolate, cocoa, oats, fish, and whole wheat flours. Any elimination diet should last for 3 months but should at least be tried for 3-4 weeks, with gradual reintroduction of foods suspected as triggers once per week. Any type I allergies that are discovered or suspected can be referred to an allergist for allergen challenge and desensitization therapy.

For more information, Dr. Zippin recommended the American Contact Dermatitis Society website for more information.

Dr. Zippin reported that he is the founder and holds stock options at CEP Biotech; is on the medical advisory board and receives stock options from YouV Labs., is a paid consultant and performs industry-sponsored research for Pfizer, receives stock options from Regeneron, and is on the medical advisory board for Hoth Therapeutics Inc. He is on the board of directors for the American Contact Dermatitis Society.