MDedge Pediatrics

Pharmacies are running out of the antibiotics used to treat serious infections in children. This leaves parents and doctors frustrated and scared.

After weeks of overcrowded waiting rooms, extended office hours, and countless telephone calls during the viral respiratory surge, pediatricians are now facing a new challenge: an ever-growing list of medication shortages, including many of the most commonly used antibiotics.

These shortages primarily affect liquid formulations, so children – and the pediatricians’ offices and pharmacies serving them – are disproportionately impacted. Though there are multiple factors contributing, antibiotic overuse for viral infections during the surge has undoubtedly catalyzed the current crisis. It can be scary for parents to watch a child miserable with fever, which is why parents and pediatricians look for a quick fix in antibiotics, but unnecessary prescriptions that contribute to ongoing shortages should be avoided. We, as practicing pediatricians, think that this is a moment for reflection on when and why we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotic overuse may have led us into this shortage, better antibiotic stewardship may just lead us out of it.

Since amoxicillin was approved for medical use in 1974, it has been one of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children. It is particularly well-suited for use in children because it treats common pediatric infections such as ear infections, strep throat, and pneumonia. These factors, along with its low cost and bubblegum flavor, make it no surprise that amoxicillin was consistently one of the top 25 medications prescribed in the United States between 2013 and 2019, with over 25 million prescriptions annually.

Amoxicillin remains the best first-line treatment option for the most common bacterial respiratory tract infections in children. With liquid formulations scarce, pediatricians, parents, and pharmacists are getting creative with crushed tablets or sprinkling capsules when possible.

However, without liquid amoxicillin readily available in our pediatric arsenal, we have recently had to turn to antibiotics with higher costs and more side effects. These broad-spectrum antibiotics target a more extensive range of bacteria and are rarely necessary for common pediatric infections. Further, their use risks increasing the already dire problem of antibiotic resistance, which causes more than 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. And perhaps most importantly, broader spectrum antibiotics aren’t better than amoxicillin for the treatment of respiratory tract infections; they are sometimes worse.

The urge to turn to antibiotics as a potential cure for childhood illnesses is an understandable one for parents and clinicians alike. A common refrain in pediatrician offices is, “Isn’t there anything we can give them?” as parents look for respite in a long viral season. As viruses continue to surge, it is helpful to remember that children will get 8 to 10 viral infections per year, with most of those occurring in the fall and winter. When parents report that their child is always sick, they aren’t far off.

Most of these infections will be cured by a child’s own immune system rather than our medications. For example, in children older than 2 years, studies have demonstrated that waiting about 2 days to start antibiotics after an ear infection is diagnosed is just as effective as starting the antibiotics right away. As tempting as it is to ask for antibiotics early, that prescription may only worsen the situation if it is a virus. Instead, pediatricians can offer parents support in treating their children at home with humidifiers, pain/fever relievers when appropriate, honey in children over 12 months, and hydration.

This drug shortage is a pivotal moment for parents and clinicians to reconsider how and when we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotics may be one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century, it is how we use them now that will determine our health in the century to come.

Dr. Lockwood is Associate Professor, department of pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Same is Assistant Professor, department of clinical pediatrics, at the University of Pennsylvania. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.

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

Pharmacies are running out of the antibiotics used to treat serious infections in children. This leaves parents and doctors frustrated and scared.

After weeks of overcrowded waiting rooms, extended office hours, and countless telephone calls during the viral respiratory surge, pediatricians are now facing a new challenge: an ever-growing list of medication shortages, including many of the most commonly used antibiotics.

These shortages primarily affect liquid formulations, so children – and the pediatricians’ offices and pharmacies serving them – are disproportionately impacted. Though there are multiple factors contributing, antibiotic overuse for viral infections during the surge has undoubtedly catalyzed the current crisis. It can be scary for parents to watch a child miserable with fever, which is why parents and pediatricians look for a quick fix in antibiotics, but unnecessary prescriptions that contribute to ongoing shortages should be avoided. We, as practicing pediatricians, think that this is a moment for reflection on when and why we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotic overuse may have led us into this shortage, better antibiotic stewardship may just lead us out of it.

Since amoxicillin was approved for medical use in 1974, it has been one of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children. It is particularly well-suited for use in children because it treats common pediatric infections such as ear infections, strep throat, and pneumonia. These factors, along with its low cost and bubblegum flavor, make it no surprise that amoxicillin was consistently one of the top 25 medications prescribed in the United States between 2013 and 2019, with over 25 million prescriptions annually.

Amoxicillin remains the best first-line treatment option for the most common bacterial respiratory tract infections in children. With liquid formulations scarce, pediatricians, parents, and pharmacists are getting creative with crushed tablets or sprinkling capsules when possible.

However, without liquid amoxicillin readily available in our pediatric arsenal, we have recently had to turn to antibiotics with higher costs and more side effects. These broad-spectrum antibiotics target a more extensive range of bacteria and are rarely necessary for common pediatric infections. Further, their use risks increasing the already dire problem of antibiotic resistance, which causes more than 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. And perhaps most importantly, broader spectrum antibiotics aren’t better than amoxicillin for the treatment of respiratory tract infections; they are sometimes worse.

The urge to turn to antibiotics as a potential cure for childhood illnesses is an understandable one for parents and clinicians alike. A common refrain in pediatrician offices is, “Isn’t there anything we can give them?” as parents look for respite in a long viral season. As viruses continue to surge, it is helpful to remember that children will get 8 to 10 viral infections per year, with most of those occurring in the fall and winter. When parents report that their child is always sick, they aren’t far off.

Most of these infections will be cured by a child’s own immune system rather than our medications. For example, in children older than 2 years, studies have demonstrated that waiting about 2 days to start antibiotics after an ear infection is diagnosed is just as effective as starting the antibiotics right away. As tempting as it is to ask for antibiotics early, that prescription may only worsen the situation if it is a virus. Instead, pediatricians can offer parents support in treating their children at home with humidifiers, pain/fever relievers when appropriate, honey in children over 12 months, and hydration.

This drug shortage is a pivotal moment for parents and clinicians to reconsider how and when we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotics may be one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century, it is how we use them now that will determine our health in the century to come.

Dr. Lockwood is Associate Professor, department of pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Same is Assistant Professor, department of clinical pediatrics, at the University of Pennsylvania. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.

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

Pharmacies are running out of the antibiotics used to treat serious infections in children. This leaves parents and doctors frustrated and scared.

After weeks of overcrowded waiting rooms, extended office hours, and countless telephone calls during the viral respiratory surge, pediatricians are now facing a new challenge: an ever-growing list of medication shortages, including many of the most commonly used antibiotics.

These shortages primarily affect liquid formulations, so children – and the pediatricians’ offices and pharmacies serving them – are disproportionately impacted. Though there are multiple factors contributing, antibiotic overuse for viral infections during the surge has undoubtedly catalyzed the current crisis. It can be scary for parents to watch a child miserable with fever, which is why parents and pediatricians look for a quick fix in antibiotics, but unnecessary prescriptions that contribute to ongoing shortages should be avoided. We, as practicing pediatricians, think that this is a moment for reflection on when and why we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotic overuse may have led us into this shortage, better antibiotic stewardship may just lead us out of it.

Since amoxicillin was approved for medical use in 1974, it has been one of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children. It is particularly well-suited for use in children because it treats common pediatric infections such as ear infections, strep throat, and pneumonia. These factors, along with its low cost and bubblegum flavor, make it no surprise that amoxicillin was consistently one of the top 25 medications prescribed in the United States between 2013 and 2019, with over 25 million prescriptions annually.

Amoxicillin remains the best first-line treatment option for the most common bacterial respiratory tract infections in children. With liquid formulations scarce, pediatricians, parents, and pharmacists are getting creative with crushed tablets or sprinkling capsules when possible.

However, without liquid amoxicillin readily available in our pediatric arsenal, we have recently had to turn to antibiotics with higher costs and more side effects. These broad-spectrum antibiotics target a more extensive range of bacteria and are rarely necessary for common pediatric infections. Further, their use risks increasing the already dire problem of antibiotic resistance, which causes more than 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. And perhaps most importantly, broader spectrum antibiotics aren’t better than amoxicillin for the treatment of respiratory tract infections; they are sometimes worse.

The urge to turn to antibiotics as a potential cure for childhood illnesses is an understandable one for parents and clinicians alike. A common refrain in pediatrician offices is, “Isn’t there anything we can give them?” as parents look for respite in a long viral season. As viruses continue to surge, it is helpful to remember that children will get 8 to 10 viral infections per year, with most of those occurring in the fall and winter. When parents report that their child is always sick, they aren’t far off.

Most of these infections will be cured by a child’s own immune system rather than our medications. For example, in children older than 2 years, studies have demonstrated that waiting about 2 days to start antibiotics after an ear infection is diagnosed is just as effective as starting the antibiotics right away. As tempting as it is to ask for antibiotics early, that prescription may only worsen the situation if it is a virus. Instead, pediatricians can offer parents support in treating their children at home with humidifiers, pain/fever relievers when appropriate, honey in children over 12 months, and hydration.

This drug shortage is a pivotal moment for parents and clinicians to reconsider how and when we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotics may be one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century, it is how we use them now that will determine our health in the century to come.

Dr. Lockwood is Associate Professor, department of pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Same is Assistant Professor, department of clinical pediatrics, at the University of Pennsylvania. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today we are going to talk about the new Blood Pressure Targets in Adults With Hypertension: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the AAFP. There are very few things that we treat more often than hypertension, so you’d think the guidelines would have been clear a long time ago. Less than 10 years ago, in 2014, JNC 8 (Eighth Joint National Committee) recommended target blood pressure for individuals under 60 to be less than 140/90, and for those older than 60, less than 150/90.

Then, based primarily on the SPRINT trial (which included only people with or at significantly elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), in 2017 the American Heart Association’s hypertension guidelines lowered the target BP to less than 130/80 for most individuals. It’s a little more nuanced than that, but most of us don’t remember the nuance. I’ve written about my reservations with that statement in the AHA’s journal, Circulation.

Now the American Academy of Family Physicians has updated its recommendations, and they recommend a BP less than 140/90. This is not a small change, as it often takes additional medication to achieve lower BP targets, and additional medicines lead to additional adverse effects. I’m going share with you some details from the new guideline, and then I’m going share my opinion about it.

The AAFP guideline applies to adults with hypertension, with or without cardiovascular disease. In the comprehensive literature review, the trials ran for an average of 3.7 years, and about 75% of the patients in the trials did not have preexisting cardiovascular disease.

The key to their recommendations is that target BPs lower than 140/90 did not show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. In regard to serious adverse events, though, lower targets led to a nominal increase that didn’t reach statistical significance. Serious adverse events were defined as death or events that required hospitalization or resulted in significant disability. In regard to all other adverse events, including syncope and hypotension, there was a significant increase, with a relative risk of 1.44 (a 44% increase in adverse events). This reflected an absolute risk increase of 3%, compared with the standard target group (specifically 9.8% vs. 6.8%), with a number needed to harm of 33 over 3.7 years.

Another potential harm of low BP targets was the need for an average of one additional medicine to reach lower BP targets. One systematic review cited an eightfold higher withdrawal rate because of adverse events in the lower-target BP groups.

The AAFP guidelines said that, in the comprehensive review of the literature, while there was no difference in mortality or stroke with lower BP targets, a small additional benefit was observed in myocardial infarction – a 16% lower incidence, with a number needed to treat of 137 over 3.7 years.

So that’s the background. Let me now go over the specifics of the AAFP recommendations.

AAFP gives a strong recommendation for a standard BP target of less than 140/90. They go on to say – and grade this next statement as a weak recommendation – that, while treating to a lower BP target does not provide additional mortality benefit, a target BP of less than 135/85 can be considered to lower the risk for MI, noting that lower BP may increase harms. They state that the lower BP target could be considered based on patient preferences and values.

The AAFP guideline is incredibly helpful. The difference in the recommendations of two large societies – American Heart Association and AAFP — stems from two things. I believe that AHA focused on the composite endpoints in trials such as SPRINT, which included only high-risk patients, and the AAFP uses mortality as the driving endpoint in a broader group of patients that included both high- and lower-risk patients.

In addition, it appears that the two organizations weigh adverse events differently in coming to their conclusions. Clearly, we see more adverse events when aiming for a lower BP level, and in my experience, patients care a lot about adverse events.

Interestingly, the International Society of Hypertension recommends an “essential” BP target of less than 140/90 for most individuals, and for those under 65, they provide the option of an “optimal” BP of less than 130/80. Remember that for certain comorbidities there are also other guidelines out there. The American Diabetes Association this year revised its target BP to less than 130/80 for people with diabetes; for prevention of recurrent stroke, guidelines from the AHA/American Stroke Association in 2021 recommend BP less than 130/80, and the International Society for Hypertension as well as the AHA recommends a BP of less than 130/80 for those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

To repeat, though, the main topic for today is that as a general target, the AAFP guidelines recommend a BP less than 140/90.

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

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

*This article was updated on 2/7/2023.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today we are going to talk about the new Blood Pressure Targets in Adults With Hypertension: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the AAFP. There are very few things that we treat more often than hypertension, so you’d think the guidelines would have been clear a long time ago. Less than 10 years ago, in 2014, JNC 8 (Eighth Joint National Committee) recommended target blood pressure for individuals under 60 to be less than 140/90, and for those older than 60, less than 150/90.

Then, based primarily on the SPRINT trial (which included only people with or at significantly elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), in 2017 the American Heart Association’s hypertension guidelines lowered the target BP to less than 130/80 for most individuals. It’s a little more nuanced than that, but most of us don’t remember the nuance. I’ve written about my reservations with that statement in the AHA’s journal, Circulation.

Now the American Academy of Family Physicians has updated its recommendations, and they recommend a BP less than 140/90. This is not a small change, as it often takes additional medication to achieve lower BP targets, and additional medicines lead to additional adverse effects. I’m going share with you some details from the new guideline, and then I’m going share my opinion about it.

The AAFP guideline applies to adults with hypertension, with or without cardiovascular disease. In the comprehensive literature review, the trials ran for an average of 3.7 years, and about 75% of the patients in the trials did not have preexisting cardiovascular disease.

The key to their recommendations is that target BPs lower than 140/90 did not show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. In regard to serious adverse events, though, lower targets led to a nominal increase that didn’t reach statistical significance. Serious adverse events were defined as death or events that required hospitalization or resulted in significant disability. In regard to all other adverse events, including syncope and hypotension, there was a significant increase, with a relative risk of 1.44 (a 44% increase in adverse events). This reflected an absolute risk increase of 3%, compared with the standard target group (specifically 9.8% vs. 6.8%), with a number needed to harm of 33 over 3.7 years.

Another potential harm of low BP targets was the need for an average of one additional medicine to reach lower BP targets. One systematic review cited an eightfold higher withdrawal rate because of adverse events in the lower-target BP groups.

The AAFP guidelines said that, in the comprehensive review of the literature, while there was no difference in mortality or stroke with lower BP targets, a small additional benefit was observed in myocardial infarction – a 16% lower incidence, with a number needed to treat of 137 over 3.7 years.

So that’s the background. Let me now go over the specifics of the AAFP recommendations.

AAFP gives a strong recommendation for a standard BP target of less than 140/90. They go on to say – and grade this next statement as a weak recommendation – that, while treating to a lower BP target does not provide additional mortality benefit, a target BP of less than 135/85 can be considered to lower the risk for MI, noting that lower BP may increase harms. They state that the lower BP target could be considered based on patient preferences and values.

The AAFP guideline is incredibly helpful. The difference in the recommendations of two large societies – American Heart Association and AAFP — stems from two things. I believe that AHA focused on the composite endpoints in trials such as SPRINT, which included only high-risk patients, and the AAFP uses mortality as the driving endpoint in a broader group of patients that included both high- and lower-risk patients.

In addition, it appears that the two organizations weigh adverse events differently in coming to their conclusions. Clearly, we see more adverse events when aiming for a lower BP level, and in my experience, patients care a lot about adverse events.

Interestingly, the International Society of Hypertension recommends an “essential” BP target of less than 140/90 for most individuals, and for those under 65, they provide the option of an “optimal” BP of less than 130/80. Remember that for certain comorbidities there are also other guidelines out there. The American Diabetes Association this year revised its target BP to less than 130/80 for people with diabetes; for prevention of recurrent stroke, guidelines from the AHA/American Stroke Association in 2021 recommend BP less than 130/80, and the International Society for Hypertension as well as the AHA recommends a BP of less than 130/80 for those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

To repeat, though, the main topic for today is that as a general target, the AAFP guidelines recommend a BP less than 140/90.

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

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

*This article was updated on 2/7/2023.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today we are going to talk about the new Blood Pressure Targets in Adults With Hypertension: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the AAFP. There are very few things that we treat more often than hypertension, so you’d think the guidelines would have been clear a long time ago. Less than 10 years ago, in 2014, JNC 8 (Eighth Joint National Committee) recommended target blood pressure for individuals under 60 to be less than 140/90, and for those older than 60, less than 150/90.

Then, based primarily on the SPRINT trial (which included only people with or at significantly elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), in 2017 the American Heart Association’s hypertension guidelines lowered the target BP to less than 130/80 for most individuals. It’s a little more nuanced than that, but most of us don’t remember the nuance. I’ve written about my reservations with that statement in the AHA’s journal, Circulation.

Now the American Academy of Family Physicians has updated its recommendations, and they recommend a BP less than 140/90. This is not a small change, as it often takes additional medication to achieve lower BP targets, and additional medicines lead to additional adverse effects. I’m going share with you some details from the new guideline, and then I’m going share my opinion about it.

The AAFP guideline applies to adults with hypertension, with or without cardiovascular disease. In the comprehensive literature review, the trials ran for an average of 3.7 years, and about 75% of the patients in the trials did not have preexisting cardiovascular disease.

The key to their recommendations is that target BPs lower than 140/90 did not show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. In regard to serious adverse events, though, lower targets led to a nominal increase that didn’t reach statistical significance. Serious adverse events were defined as death or events that required hospitalization or resulted in significant disability. In regard to all other adverse events, including syncope and hypotension, there was a significant increase, with a relative risk of 1.44 (a 44% increase in adverse events). This reflected an absolute risk increase of 3%, compared with the standard target group (specifically 9.8% vs. 6.8%), with a number needed to harm of 33 over 3.7 years.

Another potential harm of low BP targets was the need for an average of one additional medicine to reach lower BP targets. One systematic review cited an eightfold higher withdrawal rate because of adverse events in the lower-target BP groups.

The AAFP guidelines said that, in the comprehensive review of the literature, while there was no difference in mortality or stroke with lower BP targets, a small additional benefit was observed in myocardial infarction – a 16% lower incidence, with a number needed to treat of 137 over 3.7 years.

So that’s the background. Let me now go over the specifics of the AAFP recommendations.

AAFP gives a strong recommendation for a standard BP target of less than 140/90. They go on to say – and grade this next statement as a weak recommendation – that, while treating to a lower BP target does not provide additional mortality benefit, a target BP of less than 135/85 can be considered to lower the risk for MI, noting that lower BP may increase harms. They state that the lower BP target could be considered based on patient preferences and values.

The AAFP guideline is incredibly helpful. The difference in the recommendations of two large societies – American Heart Association and AAFP — stems from two things. I believe that AHA focused on the composite endpoints in trials such as SPRINT, which included only high-risk patients, and the AAFP uses mortality as the driving endpoint in a broader group of patients that included both high- and lower-risk patients.

In addition, it appears that the two organizations weigh adverse events differently in coming to their conclusions. Clearly, we see more adverse events when aiming for a lower BP level, and in my experience, patients care a lot about adverse events.

Interestingly, the International Society of Hypertension recommends an “essential” BP target of less than 140/90 for most individuals, and for those under 65, they provide the option of an “optimal” BP of less than 130/80. Remember that for certain comorbidities there are also other guidelines out there. The American Diabetes Association this year revised its target BP to less than 130/80 for people with diabetes; for prevention of recurrent stroke, guidelines from the AHA/American Stroke Association in 2021 recommend BP less than 130/80, and the International Society for Hypertension as well as the AHA recommends a BP of less than 130/80 for those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

To repeat, though, the main topic for today is that as a general target, the AAFP guidelines recommend a BP less than 140/90.

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

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

*This article was updated on 2/7/2023.

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) back previous findings of increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after receiving the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S).

Over 14 months, GBS reporting rates within 21 and 42 days of administration of Janssen’s replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine were approximately 9 to 12 times higher than after administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or the Moderna (mRNA-1273) mRNA COVID vaccines.

Additionally, observed GBS cases after the Janssen shot were 2 to 3 times greater than expected, based on background rates within 21 and 42 days of vaccination.

Conversely, and confirming prior data, there was no increased risk for GBS with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and no significant difference between observed and expected numbers of GBS cases after either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

More precise risk estimates

Winston Abara, MD, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues analyzed GBS reports submitted to the VAERS between December 2020 and January 2022. 

Among 487.6 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, 3.7% were Janssen’s Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, 54.7% were Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine, and 41.6% were Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine.

There were 295 verified reports of GBS identified after COVID-19 vaccination. Of these, 209 occurred within 21 days of vaccination and 253 within 42 days.

Within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates per 1 million doses were 3.29 for the Janssen vaccine versus 0.29 and 0.35 for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively. Within 42 days of vaccination, reporting rates per 1 million doses were 4.07, 0.34, and 0.44, respectively.

Also within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates were significantly higher with the Janssen vaccine than the Pfizer vaccine (reporting rate ratio, 11.40) and the Moderna vaccine (RRR, 9.26). Similar findings were observed within 42 days after vaccination.

The observed-to-expected ratios were 3.79 for 21-day and 2.34 for 42-day intervals after receipt of the Janssen vaccine, and less than 1 (not significant) after the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within both post-vaccination periods.

“Unlike prior studies, our analysis included all U.S. reports of verified GBS cases that met the Brighton Collaboration GBS case definition criteria (Brighton Levels 1, 2, and 3) submitted over a 14-month surveillance period to the to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,” Dr. Abara said in an interview. “Because we used all U.S. reports, the sample of verified GBS cases in this analysis is larger than other studies. Therefore, it may provide a more precise estimate of the GBS risk within 21 and 42 days after mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” he said.
 

‘Remarkably low’ use

Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., noted that this is a “nice confirmatory analysis that supports and further expands what’s been observed before.”

Last year, as reported by this news organization, Dr. Klein and colleagues reported data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink confirming a small but statistically significant increased risk for GBS in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine but not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

Unlike VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink is not a reporting system. It’s an active surveillance of medical records in the Kaiser Permanente system. The VAERS is a passive system, so it requires individuals to report GBS cases to the VAERS team, Dr. Klein explained.

So although the two studies are slightly different, overall, the VAERS data is “consistent with what we found,” she said.

Also weighing in, C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said it is “important to realize that GBS had been observed after adenovirus-vectored vaccines earlier in the pandemic, both for the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Janssen vaccine.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) preferentially recommends that people age 18 years and older receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine rather than the Janssen adenoviral vector vaccine when both types of COVID-19 vaccine are available.

“Thus, the use of the Janssen vaccine is remarkably low in the U.S. right now,” Dr. Creech said.

“Nevertheless, we have a firm commitment, both scientifically and ethically, to track potential side effects after vaccination and to make sure that the vaccines in use for COVID, and other important infectious diseases, are safe and effective,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Abara and Dr. Creech have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein reported having received grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial, as well as grants from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur).

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) back previous findings of increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after receiving the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S).

Over 14 months, GBS reporting rates within 21 and 42 days of administration of Janssen’s replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine were approximately 9 to 12 times higher than after administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or the Moderna (mRNA-1273) mRNA COVID vaccines.

Additionally, observed GBS cases after the Janssen shot were 2 to 3 times greater than expected, based on background rates within 21 and 42 days of vaccination.

Conversely, and confirming prior data, there was no increased risk for GBS with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and no significant difference between observed and expected numbers of GBS cases after either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

More precise risk estimates

Winston Abara, MD, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues analyzed GBS reports submitted to the VAERS between December 2020 and January 2022. 

Among 487.6 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, 3.7% were Janssen’s Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, 54.7% were Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine, and 41.6% were Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine.

There were 295 verified reports of GBS identified after COVID-19 vaccination. Of these, 209 occurred within 21 days of vaccination and 253 within 42 days.

Within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates per 1 million doses were 3.29 for the Janssen vaccine versus 0.29 and 0.35 for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively. Within 42 days of vaccination, reporting rates per 1 million doses were 4.07, 0.34, and 0.44, respectively.

Also within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates were significantly higher with the Janssen vaccine than the Pfizer vaccine (reporting rate ratio, 11.40) and the Moderna vaccine (RRR, 9.26). Similar findings were observed within 42 days after vaccination.

The observed-to-expected ratios were 3.79 for 21-day and 2.34 for 42-day intervals after receipt of the Janssen vaccine, and less than 1 (not significant) after the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within both post-vaccination periods.

“Unlike prior studies, our analysis included all U.S. reports of verified GBS cases that met the Brighton Collaboration GBS case definition criteria (Brighton Levels 1, 2, and 3) submitted over a 14-month surveillance period to the to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,” Dr. Abara said in an interview. “Because we used all U.S. reports, the sample of verified GBS cases in this analysis is larger than other studies. Therefore, it may provide a more precise estimate of the GBS risk within 21 and 42 days after mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” he said.
 

‘Remarkably low’ use

Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., noted that this is a “nice confirmatory analysis that supports and further expands what’s been observed before.”

Last year, as reported by this news organization, Dr. Klein and colleagues reported data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink confirming a small but statistically significant increased risk for GBS in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine but not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

Unlike VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink is not a reporting system. It’s an active surveillance of medical records in the Kaiser Permanente system. The VAERS is a passive system, so it requires individuals to report GBS cases to the VAERS team, Dr. Klein explained.

So although the two studies are slightly different, overall, the VAERS data is “consistent with what we found,” she said.

Also weighing in, C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said it is “important to realize that GBS had been observed after adenovirus-vectored vaccines earlier in the pandemic, both for the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Janssen vaccine.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) preferentially recommends that people age 18 years and older receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine rather than the Janssen adenoviral vector vaccine when both types of COVID-19 vaccine are available.

“Thus, the use of the Janssen vaccine is remarkably low in the U.S. right now,” Dr. Creech said.

“Nevertheless, we have a firm commitment, both scientifically and ethically, to track potential side effects after vaccination and to make sure that the vaccines in use for COVID, and other important infectious diseases, are safe and effective,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Abara and Dr. Creech have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein reported having received grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial, as well as grants from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur).

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) back previous findings of increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after receiving the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S).

Over 14 months, GBS reporting rates within 21 and 42 days of administration of Janssen’s replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine were approximately 9 to 12 times higher than after administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or the Moderna (mRNA-1273) mRNA COVID vaccines.

Additionally, observed GBS cases after the Janssen shot were 2 to 3 times greater than expected, based on background rates within 21 and 42 days of vaccination.

Conversely, and confirming prior data, there was no increased risk for GBS with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and no significant difference between observed and expected numbers of GBS cases after either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

More precise risk estimates

Winston Abara, MD, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues analyzed GBS reports submitted to the VAERS between December 2020 and January 2022. 

Among 487.6 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, 3.7% were Janssen’s Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, 54.7% were Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine, and 41.6% were Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine.

There were 295 verified reports of GBS identified after COVID-19 vaccination. Of these, 209 occurred within 21 days of vaccination and 253 within 42 days.

Within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates per 1 million doses were 3.29 for the Janssen vaccine versus 0.29 and 0.35 for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively. Within 42 days of vaccination, reporting rates per 1 million doses were 4.07, 0.34, and 0.44, respectively.

Also within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates were significantly higher with the Janssen vaccine than the Pfizer vaccine (reporting rate ratio, 11.40) and the Moderna vaccine (RRR, 9.26). Similar findings were observed within 42 days after vaccination.

The observed-to-expected ratios were 3.79 for 21-day and 2.34 for 42-day intervals after receipt of the Janssen vaccine, and less than 1 (not significant) after the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within both post-vaccination periods.

“Unlike prior studies, our analysis included all U.S. reports of verified GBS cases that met the Brighton Collaboration GBS case definition criteria (Brighton Levels 1, 2, and 3) submitted over a 14-month surveillance period to the to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,” Dr. Abara said in an interview. “Because we used all U.S. reports, the sample of verified GBS cases in this analysis is larger than other studies. Therefore, it may provide a more precise estimate of the GBS risk within 21 and 42 days after mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” he said.
 

‘Remarkably low’ use

Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., noted that this is a “nice confirmatory analysis that supports and further expands what’s been observed before.”

Last year, as reported by this news organization, Dr. Klein and colleagues reported data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink confirming a small but statistically significant increased risk for GBS in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine but not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

Unlike VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink is not a reporting system. It’s an active surveillance of medical records in the Kaiser Permanente system. The VAERS is a passive system, so it requires individuals to report GBS cases to the VAERS team, Dr. Klein explained.

So although the two studies are slightly different, overall, the VAERS data is “consistent with what we found,” she said.

Also weighing in, C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said it is “important to realize that GBS had been observed after adenovirus-vectored vaccines earlier in the pandemic, both for the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Janssen vaccine.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) preferentially recommends that people age 18 years and older receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine rather than the Janssen adenoviral vector vaccine when both types of COVID-19 vaccine are available.

“Thus, the use of the Janssen vaccine is remarkably low in the U.S. right now,” Dr. Creech said.

“Nevertheless, we have a firm commitment, both scientifically and ethically, to track potential side effects after vaccination and to make sure that the vaccines in use for COVID, and other important infectious diseases, are safe and effective,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Abara and Dr. Creech have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein reported having received grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial, as well as grants from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur).

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

Two-thirds of children who underwent genetic testing in the pediatric intensive care unit showed a genetic variant, and a third of these children received changes in care as a result, according to a new study presented at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2023 Critical Care Congress.

“We have had a lot of success using genome sequencing to help not only with diagnosis, but also changes in management,” lead author Katherine Rodriguez, MD, a pediatric critical care fellow physician at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, told this news organization.

However, data on the use of rapid whole genome sequencing (rWGS) in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) are limited, and data from multiple institutions are lacking, Dr. Rodriguez said. In the current study, data from multiple hospitals allowed the researchers to examine differences in management across institutions, she said.

Dr. Rodriguez, with principal investigator Nicole Coufal, MD, also of Rady Children’s, and colleagues conducted the study at three children’s hospitals from March 2019 to July 2022. The study population included 80 children whose origin of illness was uncertain. The patients underwent rWGS testing in the PICU or cardiac ICU setting. The patients ranged in age from 0 to 17 years; 64% were younger than 1 year, (mean age, 2.8 years); 56% were male, and 59% were White.  

After rWGS testing, 65% of the children were positive for a genetic variant. The data prompted changes to care for 42% of these patients; 38% of the changes occurred during the patient’s PICU stay, including medication changes and procedures that were either avoided or completed.

The remaining 62% of the changes were subacute and affected management for the remainder of the child’s hospitalization and after discharge, Dr. Rodriguez explained in her presentation.

The average turnaround time for the testing was 10 days, which is important to an intensivist, who may have been hesitant to order tests because of the time involved, Dr. Rodriguez said. The current study shows that “we can get test results in a reasonable time to make meaningful changes in care,” she told this news organization.

Choosing which patients to test can be a challenge for clinicians, Dr. Rodriguez acknowledged. “We have gotten a sense of which patients are likely to have diagnostic or not diagnostic genomes, but it is also a gut feeling,” she said.

“If this child is your patient and you are concerned, if they seem sicker than expected, or have a concerning family history, then send the test,” she said. “It is becoming more affordable, and can come back quickly enough to guide treatment while the patient is still in the ICU.”

In the current study, the greatest diagnostic utility appeared in patients with cardiac symptoms, such as congenital heart disease, sudden cardiac arrest, or suspected channelopathy, Dr. Rodriguez said in her presentation.

Patients with suspected neurological disease had a 50% rate of molecular diagnosis. “Interestingly, 74% of patients with respiratory disease where an underlying genetic etiology was suspected received a molecular diagnosis,” although rWGS was not applied to general populations with RSV or other respiratory illnesses, she said.

In her presentation, Dr. Rodriguez shared examples of how genetic testing had a dramatic impact on patient survival. In one case, a 14-year-old girl presented in cardiac arrest and was found to have new-onset dilated cardiomyopathy. Whether the etiology was acquired or infectious and possibly reversible or genetic was unclear, she said.

“A diagnostic genome result within 48 hours indicated a genetic etiology,” she said. The patient was listed for heart transplant despite the incomplete infectious workup, and received a successful heart transplant 1 week after admission, Dr. Rodriguez said.

Guidelines for which PICU patients should undergo genetic testing do not yet exist, Dr. Rodriguez told this news organization. “We are trying to find some more meaningful parameters where we can say that a patient has a high pretest possibility of a genetic condition,” she said.

“Increasing availability of rWGS can significantly impact patient care and assist families in making difficult decisions during times of critical illness,” she said.

Insurance coverage and testing access are improving, said Dr. Rodriguez. Medicaid policies exist for neonates/infants in the ICU in several states, including Oregon, California, Michigan, Maryland, and Louisiana, she said. In some areas, hospitals may pay for testing for these children if insurance will not, she added.

Dr. Rodriguez and colleagues are continuing to enroll patients in a prospective study of the impact of rWGS, with the addition of a fourth study site and inclusion of family surveys. “We also will be looking at a secondary analysis of cost savings and benefits,” she said.

Ultimately, the current study should be empowering to physicians, “especially if they don’t have good access to geneticists,” Dr. Rodriguez said in an interview.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Rodriguez reports no relevant financial relationships. 

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

Two-thirds of children who underwent genetic testing in the pediatric intensive care unit showed a genetic variant, and a third of these children received changes in care as a result, according to a new study presented at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2023 Critical Care Congress.

“We have had a lot of success using genome sequencing to help not only with diagnosis, but also changes in management,” lead author Katherine Rodriguez, MD, a pediatric critical care fellow physician at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, told this news organization.

However, data on the use of rapid whole genome sequencing (rWGS) in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) are limited, and data from multiple institutions are lacking, Dr. Rodriguez said. In the current study, data from multiple hospitals allowed the researchers to examine differences in management across institutions, she said.

Dr. Rodriguez, with principal investigator Nicole Coufal, MD, also of Rady Children’s, and colleagues conducted the study at three children’s hospitals from March 2019 to July 2022. The study population included 80 children whose origin of illness was uncertain. The patients underwent rWGS testing in the PICU or cardiac ICU setting. The patients ranged in age from 0 to 17 years; 64% were younger than 1 year, (mean age, 2.8 years); 56% were male, and 59% were White.  

After rWGS testing, 65% of the children were positive for a genetic variant. The data prompted changes to care for 42% of these patients; 38% of the changes occurred during the patient’s PICU stay, including medication changes and procedures that were either avoided or completed.

The remaining 62% of the changes were subacute and affected management for the remainder of the child’s hospitalization and after discharge, Dr. Rodriguez explained in her presentation.

The average turnaround time for the testing was 10 days, which is important to an intensivist, who may have been hesitant to order tests because of the time involved, Dr. Rodriguez said. The current study shows that “we can get test results in a reasonable time to make meaningful changes in care,” she told this news organization.

Choosing which patients to test can be a challenge for clinicians, Dr. Rodriguez acknowledged. “We have gotten a sense of which patients are likely to have diagnostic or not diagnostic genomes, but it is also a gut feeling,” she said.

“If this child is your patient and you are concerned, if they seem sicker than expected, or have a concerning family history, then send the test,” she said. “It is becoming more affordable, and can come back quickly enough to guide treatment while the patient is still in the ICU.”

In the current study, the greatest diagnostic utility appeared in patients with cardiac symptoms, such as congenital heart disease, sudden cardiac arrest, or suspected channelopathy, Dr. Rodriguez said in her presentation.

Patients with suspected neurological disease had a 50% rate of molecular diagnosis. “Interestingly, 74% of patients with respiratory disease where an underlying genetic etiology was suspected received a molecular diagnosis,” although rWGS was not applied to general populations with RSV or other respiratory illnesses, she said.

In her presentation, Dr. Rodriguez shared examples of how genetic testing had a dramatic impact on patient survival. In one case, a 14-year-old girl presented in cardiac arrest and was found to have new-onset dilated cardiomyopathy. Whether the etiology was acquired or infectious and possibly reversible or genetic was unclear, she said.

“A diagnostic genome result within 48 hours indicated a genetic etiology,” she said. The patient was listed for heart transplant despite the incomplete infectious workup, and received a successful heart transplant 1 week after admission, Dr. Rodriguez said.

Guidelines for which PICU patients should undergo genetic testing do not yet exist, Dr. Rodriguez told this news organization. “We are trying to find some more meaningful parameters where we can say that a patient has a high pretest possibility of a genetic condition,” she said.

“Increasing availability of rWGS can significantly impact patient care and assist families in making difficult decisions during times of critical illness,” she said.

Insurance coverage and testing access are improving, said Dr. Rodriguez. Medicaid policies exist for neonates/infants in the ICU in several states, including Oregon, California, Michigan, Maryland, and Louisiana, she said. In some areas, hospitals may pay for testing for these children if insurance will not, she added.

Dr. Rodriguez and colleagues are continuing to enroll patients in a prospective study of the impact of rWGS, with the addition of a fourth study site and inclusion of family surveys. “We also will be looking at a secondary analysis of cost savings and benefits,” she said.

Ultimately, the current study should be empowering to physicians, “especially if they don’t have good access to geneticists,” Dr. Rodriguez said in an interview.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Rodriguez reports no relevant financial relationships. 

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

Two-thirds of children who underwent genetic testing in the pediatric intensive care unit showed a genetic variant, and a third of these children received changes in care as a result, according to a new study presented at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2023 Critical Care Congress.

“We have had a lot of success using genome sequencing to help not only with diagnosis, but also changes in management,” lead author Katherine Rodriguez, MD, a pediatric critical care fellow physician at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, told this news organization.

However, data on the use of rapid whole genome sequencing (rWGS) in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) are limited, and data from multiple institutions are lacking, Dr. Rodriguez said. In the current study, data from multiple hospitals allowed the researchers to examine differences in management across institutions, she said.

Dr. Rodriguez, with principal investigator Nicole Coufal, MD, also of Rady Children’s, and colleagues conducted the study at three children’s hospitals from March 2019 to July 2022. The study population included 80 children whose origin of illness was uncertain. The patients underwent rWGS testing in the PICU or cardiac ICU setting. The patients ranged in age from 0 to 17 years; 64% were younger than 1 year, (mean age, 2.8 years); 56% were male, and 59% were White.  

After rWGS testing, 65% of the children were positive for a genetic variant. The data prompted changes to care for 42% of these patients; 38% of the changes occurred during the patient’s PICU stay, including medication changes and procedures that were either avoided or completed.

The remaining 62% of the changes were subacute and affected management for the remainder of the child’s hospitalization and after discharge, Dr. Rodriguez explained in her presentation.

The average turnaround time for the testing was 10 days, which is important to an intensivist, who may have been hesitant to order tests because of the time involved, Dr. Rodriguez said. The current study shows that “we can get test results in a reasonable time to make meaningful changes in care,” she told this news organization.

Choosing which patients to test can be a challenge for clinicians, Dr. Rodriguez acknowledged. “We have gotten a sense of which patients are likely to have diagnostic or not diagnostic genomes, but it is also a gut feeling,” she said.

“If this child is your patient and you are concerned, if they seem sicker than expected, or have a concerning family history, then send the test,” she said. “It is becoming more affordable, and can come back quickly enough to guide treatment while the patient is still in the ICU.”

In the current study, the greatest diagnostic utility appeared in patients with cardiac symptoms, such as congenital heart disease, sudden cardiac arrest, or suspected channelopathy, Dr. Rodriguez said in her presentation.

Patients with suspected neurological disease had a 50% rate of molecular diagnosis. “Interestingly, 74% of patients with respiratory disease where an underlying genetic etiology was suspected received a molecular diagnosis,” although rWGS was not applied to general populations with RSV or other respiratory illnesses, she said.

In her presentation, Dr. Rodriguez shared examples of how genetic testing had a dramatic impact on patient survival. In one case, a 14-year-old girl presented in cardiac arrest and was found to have new-onset dilated cardiomyopathy. Whether the etiology was acquired or infectious and possibly reversible or genetic was unclear, she said.

“A diagnostic genome result within 48 hours indicated a genetic etiology,” she said. The patient was listed for heart transplant despite the incomplete infectious workup, and received a successful heart transplant 1 week after admission, Dr. Rodriguez said.

Guidelines for which PICU patients should undergo genetic testing do not yet exist, Dr. Rodriguez told this news organization. “We are trying to find some more meaningful parameters where we can say that a patient has a high pretest possibility of a genetic condition,” she said.

“Increasing availability of rWGS can significantly impact patient care and assist families in making difficult decisions during times of critical illness,” she said.

Insurance coverage and testing access are improving, said Dr. Rodriguez. Medicaid policies exist for neonates/infants in the ICU in several states, including Oregon, California, Michigan, Maryland, and Louisiana, she said. In some areas, hospitals may pay for testing for these children if insurance will not, she added.

Dr. Rodriguez and colleagues are continuing to enroll patients in a prospective study of the impact of rWGS, with the addition of a fourth study site and inclusion of family surveys. “We also will be looking at a secondary analysis of cost savings and benefits,” she said.

Ultimately, the current study should be empowering to physicians, “especially if they don’t have good access to geneticists,” Dr. Rodriguez said in an interview.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Rodriguez reports no relevant financial relationships. 

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

Opioids are widely regarded as a linchpin in the treatment of moderate to severe cancer-related pain and end-of-life symptoms; however, there are persistent racial and ethnic inequities in opioid access among older cancer patients, with Black patients being disproportionately affected, a new study suggests.

Black patients were more likely to undergo urine drug screening (UDS) despite being less likely to receive any opioids for pain management and receiving lower daily doses of opioids in comparison with White patients, the study found.

The inequities were particularly stark for Black men. “We found that Black men were far less likely to be prescribed reasonable doses than White men were,” said the study’s senior author, Alexi Wright, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist and a researcher in the division of population sciences at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “And Black men were less likely to receive long-acting opioids, which are essential for many patients dying of cancer. Our findings are startling because everyone should agree that cancer patients should have equal access to pain relief at the end of life.”

The study was published on in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The researchers gathered data on 318,549 Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years with poor-prognosis cancers who died between 2007 and 2019. During this time frame, for all groups, access to opioids declined and urine drug testing expanded, owing to the overall opioid epidemic in the United States. Overall, the proportion of patients near end of life (EOL) who received any opioid or long-acting opioids decreased from 42.2% to 32.7% and from 17.9% to 9.4%, respectively.

The investigators used National Drug Codes to identify all Medicare Part D claims for outpatient opioid prescriptions, excluding addiction treatments, cough suppressants, and parenteral opioids. They focused on prescriptions that were filled at least 30 days before death or hospice enrollment.

Among the study participants, the majority (85.5%) of patients were White, 29,555 patients (9.3%) were Black, and 16,636 patients (5.2%) were Hispanic.

Black and Hispanic patients were statistically less likely than White patients to receive opioid prescriptions near EOL (Black, –4.3 percentage points; Hispanic, –3.6 percentage points). They were also less likely to receive long-acting opioid prescriptions (Black, –3.1 percentage points; Hispanic, –2.2 percentage points).

“It’s not just that patients of color are less likely to get opioids, but when they do get them, they get lower doses, and they also are less likely to get long-acting opioids, which a lot of people view as sort of more potential for addiction, which isn’t necessarily true but kind of viewed with heightened concern or suspicion,” the study’s lead author, Andrea Enzinger, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist and a researcher in Dana-Farber’s division of population sciences, said in an interview.

Dr. Enzinger added that she believes systemic racism and preconceived biases toward minorities and drug addiction may be contributing to these trends.

When Black patients did receive at least one opioid prescription, they received daily doses that were 10.5 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) lower than doses given to White patients. Compared with the total opioid dose filled per White decedent near EOL, the total dose filled per Black decedent was 210 MMEs lower.

“We all need to be worried about the potential for misuse or addiction, but this is the one setting that is very low on my priority list when somebody is dying. I mean, we’re looking at the last month of life, so nobody has the potential to become addicted,” Dr. Enzinger commented.

The team also evaluated rates or urine drug screening (UDS), but as these rates were relatively low, they expanded the time frame to 180 days before death or hospice. They found that disparities in UDS disproportionately affected Black men.

From 2007 to 2019, the proportion of patients who underwent UDS increased from 0.6% to 6.7% in the 180 days before death or hospice; however, Black decedents were tested more often than White or Hispanic decedents.

Black decedents were 0.5 percentage points more likely than White decedents to undergo UDS near EOL.

“The disparities in urine drug screening are modest but important, because they hint at underlying systematic racism in recommending patients for screening,” Dr. Wright said. “Screening needs to either be applied uniformly or not at all for patients in this situation.”

The researchers acknowledged that their findings likely do not represent the full spectrum of prescribing disparities and believe that the work should be expanded among younger populations. Nevertheless, the investigators believe the work highlights the persistent racial and ethnic disparities in opioid access.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Policy.

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

Opioids are widely regarded as a linchpin in the treatment of moderate to severe cancer-related pain and end-of-life symptoms; however, there are persistent racial and ethnic inequities in opioid access among older cancer patients, with Black patients being disproportionately affected, a new study suggests.

Black patients were more likely to undergo urine drug screening (UDS) despite being less likely to receive any opioids for pain management and receiving lower daily doses of opioids in comparison with White patients, the study found.

The inequities were particularly stark for Black men. “We found that Black men were far less likely to be prescribed reasonable doses than White men were,” said the study’s senior author, Alexi Wright, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist and a researcher in the division of population sciences at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “And Black men were less likely to receive long-acting opioids, which are essential for many patients dying of cancer. Our findings are startling because everyone should agree that cancer patients should have equal access to pain relief at the end of life.”

The study was published on in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The researchers gathered data on 318,549 Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years with poor-prognosis cancers who died between 2007 and 2019. During this time frame, for all groups, access to opioids declined and urine drug testing expanded, owing to the overall opioid epidemic in the United States. Overall, the proportion of patients near end of life (EOL) who received any opioid or long-acting opioids decreased from 42.2% to 32.7% and from 17.9% to 9.4%, respectively.

The investigators used National Drug Codes to identify all Medicare Part D claims for outpatient opioid prescriptions, excluding addiction treatments, cough suppressants, and parenteral opioids. They focused on prescriptions that were filled at least 30 days before death or hospice enrollment.

Among the study participants, the majority (85.5%) of patients were White, 29,555 patients (9.3%) were Black, and 16,636 patients (5.2%) were Hispanic.

Black and Hispanic patients were statistically less likely than White patients to receive opioid prescriptions near EOL (Black, –4.3 percentage points; Hispanic, –3.6 percentage points). They were also less likely to receive long-acting opioid prescriptions (Black, –3.1 percentage points; Hispanic, –2.2 percentage points).

“It’s not just that patients of color are less likely to get opioids, but when they do get them, they get lower doses, and they also are less likely to get long-acting opioids, which a lot of people view as sort of more potential for addiction, which isn’t necessarily true but kind of viewed with heightened concern or suspicion,” the study’s lead author, Andrea Enzinger, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist and a researcher in Dana-Farber’s division of population sciences, said in an interview.

Dr. Enzinger added that she believes systemic racism and preconceived biases toward minorities and drug addiction may be contributing to these trends.

When Black patients did receive at least one opioid prescription, they received daily doses that were 10.5 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) lower than doses given to White patients. Compared with the total opioid dose filled per White decedent near EOL, the total dose filled per Black decedent was 210 MMEs lower.

“We all need to be worried about the potential for misuse or addiction, but this is the one setting that is very low on my priority list when somebody is dying. I mean, we’re looking at the last month of life, so nobody has the potential to become addicted,” Dr. Enzinger commented.

The team also evaluated rates or urine drug screening (UDS), but as these rates were relatively low, they expanded the time frame to 180 days before death or hospice. They found that disparities in UDS disproportionately affected Black men.

From 2007 to 2019, the proportion of patients who underwent UDS increased from 0.6% to 6.7% in the 180 days before death or hospice; however, Black decedents were tested more often than White or Hispanic decedents.

Black decedents were 0.5 percentage points more likely than White decedents to undergo UDS near EOL.

“The disparities in urine drug screening are modest but important, because they hint at underlying systematic racism in recommending patients for screening,” Dr. Wright said. “Screening needs to either be applied uniformly or not at all for patients in this situation.”

The researchers acknowledged that their findings likely do not represent the full spectrum of prescribing disparities and believe that the work should be expanded among younger populations. Nevertheless, the investigators believe the work highlights the persistent racial and ethnic disparities in opioid access.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Policy.

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

Opioids are widely regarded as a linchpin in the treatment of moderate to severe cancer-related pain and end-of-life symptoms; however, there are persistent racial and ethnic inequities in opioid access among older cancer patients, with Black patients being disproportionately affected, a new study suggests.

Black patients were more likely to undergo urine drug screening (UDS) despite being less likely to receive any opioids for pain management and receiving lower daily doses of opioids in comparison with White patients, the study found.

The inequities were particularly stark for Black men. “We found that Black men were far less likely to be prescribed reasonable doses than White men were,” said the study’s senior author, Alexi Wright, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist and a researcher in the division of population sciences at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “And Black men were less likely to receive long-acting opioids, which are essential for many patients dying of cancer. Our findings are startling because everyone should agree that cancer patients should have equal access to pain relief at the end of life.”

The study was published on in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The researchers gathered data on 318,549 Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years with poor-prognosis cancers who died between 2007 and 2019. During this time frame, for all groups, access to opioids declined and urine drug testing expanded, owing to the overall opioid epidemic in the United States. Overall, the proportion of patients near end of life (EOL) who received any opioid or long-acting opioids decreased from 42.2% to 32.7% and from 17.9% to 9.4%, respectively.

The investigators used National Drug Codes to identify all Medicare Part D claims for outpatient opioid prescriptions, excluding addiction treatments, cough suppressants, and parenteral opioids. They focused on prescriptions that were filled at least 30 days before death or hospice enrollment.

Among the study participants, the majority (85.5%) of patients were White, 29,555 patients (9.3%) were Black, and 16,636 patients (5.2%) were Hispanic.

Black and Hispanic patients were statistically less likely than White patients to receive opioid prescriptions near EOL (Black, –4.3 percentage points; Hispanic, –3.6 percentage points). They were also less likely to receive long-acting opioid prescriptions (Black, –3.1 percentage points; Hispanic, –2.2 percentage points).

“It’s not just that patients of color are less likely to get opioids, but when they do get them, they get lower doses, and they also are less likely to get long-acting opioids, which a lot of people view as sort of more potential for addiction, which isn’t necessarily true but kind of viewed with heightened concern or suspicion,” the study’s lead author, Andrea Enzinger, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist and a researcher in Dana-Farber’s division of population sciences, said in an interview.

Dr. Enzinger added that she believes systemic racism and preconceived biases toward minorities and drug addiction may be contributing to these trends.

When Black patients did receive at least one opioid prescription, they received daily doses that were 10.5 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) lower than doses given to White patients. Compared with the total opioid dose filled per White decedent near EOL, the total dose filled per Black decedent was 210 MMEs lower.

“We all need to be worried about the potential for misuse or addiction, but this is the one setting that is very low on my priority list when somebody is dying. I mean, we’re looking at the last month of life, so nobody has the potential to become addicted,” Dr. Enzinger commented.

The team also evaluated rates or urine drug screening (UDS), but as these rates were relatively low, they expanded the time frame to 180 days before death or hospice. They found that disparities in UDS disproportionately affected Black men.

From 2007 to 2019, the proportion of patients who underwent UDS increased from 0.6% to 6.7% in the 180 days before death or hospice; however, Black decedents were tested more often than White or Hispanic decedents.

Black decedents were 0.5 percentage points more likely than White decedents to undergo UDS near EOL.

“The disparities in urine drug screening are modest but important, because they hint at underlying systematic racism in recommending patients for screening,” Dr. Wright said. “Screening needs to either be applied uniformly or not at all for patients in this situation.”

The researchers acknowledged that their findings likely do not represent the full spectrum of prescribing disparities and believe that the work should be expanded among younger populations. Nevertheless, the investigators believe the work highlights the persistent racial and ethnic disparities in opioid access.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Policy.

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

Young adults who survive cancer are more likely than cancer-free siblings to be lonely and to develop emotional distress, risky behaviors, and new chronic conditions as a result, findings from a large retrospective study suggest.

Young cancer survivors were more than twice as likely to report loneliness at study baseline and follow-up. Loneliness at these times was associated with an almost 10-fold increased risk for anxiety and a nearly 18-fold increased risk for depression.

“We observed an elevated prevalence of loneliness in survivors, compared to sibling controls, and found that loneliness was associated with emotional, behavioral, and physical health morbidities,” lead study author Chiara Papini, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and her colleagues write. “Our results highlight the importance of identifying and screening young adult survivors of childhood cancer for loneliness and the need for targeted interventions to reduce loneliness.”

The article was published online in the journal Cancer.

Most young cancer survivors in the United States reach adulthood and need to play catch-up: make up for missed school and work, become reacquainted with old friends, and develop new friendships, social networks, and intimate relationships. Meeting these needs may be hindered by adverse physical and psychosocial problems that linger or develop after treatment, which may leave cancer survivors feeling isolated.

“Young adult survivors of childhood cancer are navigating a developmental period marked by increased social expectations, during which loneliness may have significant impact on physical and mental health,” Dr. Papini and colleagues say.

To better understand the risks for loneliness among young cancer survivors, Dr. Papini and her colleagues analyzed data from the retrospective Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, which followed young survivors who had been diagnosed with a range of cancers before age 21 years. Study participants had been treated at one of 31 study sites in North America and had survived 5 years or longer after diagnosis.

The 9,664 survivors and 2,221 randomly sampled siblings ranged in age from 19 to 39 years at the time they completed a survey that assessed emotional distress at baseline and at follow‐up a median of 6.6 years. At baseline, the median age of the survivors was 27 years, and a median of 17.5 years had passed from the time of their diagnosis.

The most common diagnoses were leukemia (35%), Hodgkin lymphoma (15%), central nervous system (CNS) tumors (14%), and bone tumors (10%). More than half (56%) had received radiation therapy.

Using multivariable models, the researchers found that survivors were more likely than siblings to report moderate to extreme loneliness at either baseline or follow‐up (prevalence ratio, 1.04) and were more than two times more likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up (PR, 2.21).

Loneliness at baseline and follow‐up was associated with a much greater risk for anxiety (relative risk, 9.75) and depression (RR, 17.86). Loneliness at follow‐up was linked with increased risks for suicidal ideation (RR, 1.52), heavy or risky alcohol consumption (RR, 1.27), and any grade 2-4 new‐onset chronic health condition (RR, 1.29), especially those that were neurologic (RR, 4.37).

Survivors of CNS tumors (odds ratio, 2.59) and leukemia (OR, 2.52) were most likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up, though survivors of four other cancer types also faced an elevated risk for loneliness: neuroblastoma (OR, 2.32), bone tumor (OR, 2.12), soft tissue sarcoma (OR, 1.78), and Hodgkin lymphoma (OR, 1.69).

Treatment type appeared to matter as well. Survivors who underwent amputation (OR, 1.82) or were treated with cranial radiation greater than or equal to 20 Gy (OR, 1.56) or corticosteroids (OR, 1.31) were more likely to report loneliness at baseline and follow‐up, compared with those who reported no loneliness at both time points.

The authors acknowledge limitations to the study, including the fact that roughly 90% of survivors and siblings were White, which limits the applicability of their results to diverse groups. In addition, the responses were self-reported without external validation.

Overall, though, the findings provide a framework for clinicians to understand and identify loneliness among young cancer survivors and help them cope with their emotions.

“The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study provides the largest and the most comprehensive dataset on childhood cancer survivors and healthy-sibling comparisons, giving us powerful data on survivorship, late effects, and psychosocial and health outcomes,” Rachel M. Moore, PhD, child psychologist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview.

Asking a simple question – “Are you feeling lonely?” – can identify at-risk survivors and enable health care teams to provide timely interventions that address young patients’ physical and psychological needs, said Dr. Moore, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Moore noted that within her clinical practice, “adolescent and young adult survivors frequently discuss loneliness in their daily lives. They feel different from their peers and misunderstood. Having a conversation early in survivorship care about the experience of loneliness as a product of cancer treatment can open the door to regular screening and destigmatizing mental health services.”

Supporting young people throughout their survivorship journey is important, said Rusha Bhandari, MD, medical director of the Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer Survivorship Program at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif. This study can help ensure that clinicians “provide comprehensive care, including psychosocial screening and support, to meet the unique needs of our young adult survivors,” said Dr. Bhandari, who also was not involved in the research.

The National Cancer Institute and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities supported the study. One co-author reported receiving corporate consulting fees. Dr. Papini, the remaining co-authors, Dr. Moore, and Dr. Bhandari report no relevant financial involvements.

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

Young adults who survive cancer are more likely than cancer-free siblings to be lonely and to develop emotional distress, risky behaviors, and new chronic conditions as a result, findings from a large retrospective study suggest.

Young cancer survivors were more than twice as likely to report loneliness at study baseline and follow-up. Loneliness at these times was associated with an almost 10-fold increased risk for anxiety and a nearly 18-fold increased risk for depression.

“We observed an elevated prevalence of loneliness in survivors, compared to sibling controls, and found that loneliness was associated with emotional, behavioral, and physical health morbidities,” lead study author Chiara Papini, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and her colleagues write. “Our results highlight the importance of identifying and screening young adult survivors of childhood cancer for loneliness and the need for targeted interventions to reduce loneliness.”

The article was published online in the journal Cancer.

Most young cancer survivors in the United States reach adulthood and need to play catch-up: make up for missed school and work, become reacquainted with old friends, and develop new friendships, social networks, and intimate relationships. Meeting these needs may be hindered by adverse physical and psychosocial problems that linger or develop after treatment, which may leave cancer survivors feeling isolated.

“Young adult survivors of childhood cancer are navigating a developmental period marked by increased social expectations, during which loneliness may have significant impact on physical and mental health,” Dr. Papini and colleagues say.

To better understand the risks for loneliness among young cancer survivors, Dr. Papini and her colleagues analyzed data from the retrospective Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, which followed young survivors who had been diagnosed with a range of cancers before age 21 years. Study participants had been treated at one of 31 study sites in North America and had survived 5 years or longer after diagnosis.

The 9,664 survivors and 2,221 randomly sampled siblings ranged in age from 19 to 39 years at the time they completed a survey that assessed emotional distress at baseline and at follow‐up a median of 6.6 years. At baseline, the median age of the survivors was 27 years, and a median of 17.5 years had passed from the time of their diagnosis.

The most common diagnoses were leukemia (35%), Hodgkin lymphoma (15%), central nervous system (CNS) tumors (14%), and bone tumors (10%). More than half (56%) had received radiation therapy.

Using multivariable models, the researchers found that survivors were more likely than siblings to report moderate to extreme loneliness at either baseline or follow‐up (prevalence ratio, 1.04) and were more than two times more likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up (PR, 2.21).

Loneliness at baseline and follow‐up was associated with a much greater risk for anxiety (relative risk, 9.75) and depression (RR, 17.86). Loneliness at follow‐up was linked with increased risks for suicidal ideation (RR, 1.52), heavy or risky alcohol consumption (RR, 1.27), and any grade 2-4 new‐onset chronic health condition (RR, 1.29), especially those that were neurologic (RR, 4.37).

Survivors of CNS tumors (odds ratio, 2.59) and leukemia (OR, 2.52) were most likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up, though survivors of four other cancer types also faced an elevated risk for loneliness: neuroblastoma (OR, 2.32), bone tumor (OR, 2.12), soft tissue sarcoma (OR, 1.78), and Hodgkin lymphoma (OR, 1.69).

Treatment type appeared to matter as well. Survivors who underwent amputation (OR, 1.82) or were treated with cranial radiation greater than or equal to 20 Gy (OR, 1.56) or corticosteroids (OR, 1.31) were more likely to report loneliness at baseline and follow‐up, compared with those who reported no loneliness at both time points.

The authors acknowledge limitations to the study, including the fact that roughly 90% of survivors and siblings were White, which limits the applicability of their results to diverse groups. In addition, the responses were self-reported without external validation.

Overall, though, the findings provide a framework for clinicians to understand and identify loneliness among young cancer survivors and help them cope with their emotions.

“The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study provides the largest and the most comprehensive dataset on childhood cancer survivors and healthy-sibling comparisons, giving us powerful data on survivorship, late effects, and psychosocial and health outcomes,” Rachel M. Moore, PhD, child psychologist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview.

Asking a simple question – “Are you feeling lonely?” – can identify at-risk survivors and enable health care teams to provide timely interventions that address young patients’ physical and psychological needs, said Dr. Moore, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Moore noted that within her clinical practice, “adolescent and young adult survivors frequently discuss loneliness in their daily lives. They feel different from their peers and misunderstood. Having a conversation early in survivorship care about the experience of loneliness as a product of cancer treatment can open the door to regular screening and destigmatizing mental health services.”

Supporting young people throughout their survivorship journey is important, said Rusha Bhandari, MD, medical director of the Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer Survivorship Program at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif. This study can help ensure that clinicians “provide comprehensive care, including psychosocial screening and support, to meet the unique needs of our young adult survivors,” said Dr. Bhandari, who also was not involved in the research.

The National Cancer Institute and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities supported the study. One co-author reported receiving corporate consulting fees. Dr. Papini, the remaining co-authors, Dr. Moore, and Dr. Bhandari report no relevant financial involvements.

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

Young adults who survive cancer are more likely than cancer-free siblings to be lonely and to develop emotional distress, risky behaviors, and new chronic conditions as a result, findings from a large retrospective study suggest.

Young cancer survivors were more than twice as likely to report loneliness at study baseline and follow-up. Loneliness at these times was associated with an almost 10-fold increased risk for anxiety and a nearly 18-fold increased risk for depression.

“We observed an elevated prevalence of loneliness in survivors, compared to sibling controls, and found that loneliness was associated with emotional, behavioral, and physical health morbidities,” lead study author Chiara Papini, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and her colleagues write. “Our results highlight the importance of identifying and screening young adult survivors of childhood cancer for loneliness and the need for targeted interventions to reduce loneliness.”

The article was published online in the journal Cancer.

Most young cancer survivors in the United States reach adulthood and need to play catch-up: make up for missed school and work, become reacquainted with old friends, and develop new friendships, social networks, and intimate relationships. Meeting these needs may be hindered by adverse physical and psychosocial problems that linger or develop after treatment, which may leave cancer survivors feeling isolated.

“Young adult survivors of childhood cancer are navigating a developmental period marked by increased social expectations, during which loneliness may have significant impact on physical and mental health,” Dr. Papini and colleagues say.

To better understand the risks for loneliness among young cancer survivors, Dr. Papini and her colleagues analyzed data from the retrospective Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, which followed young survivors who had been diagnosed with a range of cancers before age 21 years. Study participants had been treated at one of 31 study sites in North America and had survived 5 years or longer after diagnosis.

The 9,664 survivors and 2,221 randomly sampled siblings ranged in age from 19 to 39 years at the time they completed a survey that assessed emotional distress at baseline and at follow‐up a median of 6.6 years. At baseline, the median age of the survivors was 27 years, and a median of 17.5 years had passed from the time of their diagnosis.

The most common diagnoses were leukemia (35%), Hodgkin lymphoma (15%), central nervous system (CNS) tumors (14%), and bone tumors (10%). More than half (56%) had received radiation therapy.

Using multivariable models, the researchers found that survivors were more likely than siblings to report moderate to extreme loneliness at either baseline or follow‐up (prevalence ratio, 1.04) and were more than two times more likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up (PR, 2.21).

Loneliness at baseline and follow‐up was associated with a much greater risk for anxiety (relative risk, 9.75) and depression (RR, 17.86). Loneliness at follow‐up was linked with increased risks for suicidal ideation (RR, 1.52), heavy or risky alcohol consumption (RR, 1.27), and any grade 2-4 new‐onset chronic health condition (RR, 1.29), especially those that were neurologic (RR, 4.37).

Survivors of CNS tumors (odds ratio, 2.59) and leukemia (OR, 2.52) were most likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up, though survivors of four other cancer types also faced an elevated risk for loneliness: neuroblastoma (OR, 2.32), bone tumor (OR, 2.12), soft tissue sarcoma (OR, 1.78), and Hodgkin lymphoma (OR, 1.69).

Treatment type appeared to matter as well. Survivors who underwent amputation (OR, 1.82) or were treated with cranial radiation greater than or equal to 20 Gy (OR, 1.56) or corticosteroids (OR, 1.31) were more likely to report loneliness at baseline and follow‐up, compared with those who reported no loneliness at both time points.

The authors acknowledge limitations to the study, including the fact that roughly 90% of survivors and siblings were White, which limits the applicability of their results to diverse groups. In addition, the responses were self-reported without external validation.

Overall, though, the findings provide a framework for clinicians to understand and identify loneliness among young cancer survivors and help them cope with their emotions.

“The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study provides the largest and the most comprehensive dataset on childhood cancer survivors and healthy-sibling comparisons, giving us powerful data on survivorship, late effects, and psychosocial and health outcomes,” Rachel M. Moore, PhD, child psychologist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview.

Asking a simple question – “Are you feeling lonely?” – can identify at-risk survivors and enable health care teams to provide timely interventions that address young patients’ physical and psychological needs, said Dr. Moore, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Moore noted that within her clinical practice, “adolescent and young adult survivors frequently discuss loneliness in their daily lives. They feel different from their peers and misunderstood. Having a conversation early in survivorship care about the experience of loneliness as a product of cancer treatment can open the door to regular screening and destigmatizing mental health services.”

Supporting young people throughout their survivorship journey is important, said Rusha Bhandari, MD, medical director of the Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer Survivorship Program at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif. This study can help ensure that clinicians “provide comprehensive care, including psychosocial screening and support, to meet the unique needs of our young adult survivors,” said Dr. Bhandari, who also was not involved in the research.

The National Cancer Institute and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities supported the study. One co-author reported receiving corporate consulting fees. Dr. Papini, the remaining co-authors, Dr. Moore, and Dr. Bhandari report no relevant financial involvements.

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

Contrary to common belief, potatoes do not have a negative effect on blood glucose levels and can actually help people lose weight, according to researchers at Louisiana State University’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge.

What to know

Potatoes are filled with key nutrients, packed with health benefits, and do not increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, as has been assumed.

People tend to eat the same weight of food regardless of calorie content to feel full, so by eating foods that are heavier in weight and that are low in calories, you can reduce the number of calories you consume.

Study participants found themselves fuller, and full more quickly, and often did not even finish their meal when the high-calorie items of their meals were replaced with potatoes.

Participants had overweight, obesity, or insulin resistance, but their blood glucose levels were not negatively affected by the potato consumption, and all of those involved actually lost weight.

People typically do not stick with a diet they don’t like or that isn't varied enough, but potatoes can be prepared in numerous ways for variety in a diet, and they are a fairly inexpensive vegetable to incorporate into a diet.

This is a summary of the article, "Low-Energy Dense Potato- and Bean-Based Diets Reduce Body Weight and Insulin Resistance: A Randomized, Feeding, Equivalence Trial," published in the Journal of Medicinal Food on November 11, 2022. The full article can be found on pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

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

Contrary to common belief, potatoes do not have a negative effect on blood glucose levels and can actually help people lose weight, according to researchers at Louisiana State University’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge.

What to know

Potatoes are filled with key nutrients, packed with health benefits, and do not increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, as has been assumed.

People tend to eat the same weight of food regardless of calorie content to feel full, so by eating foods that are heavier in weight and that are low in calories, you can reduce the number of calories you consume.

Study participants found themselves fuller, and full more quickly, and often did not even finish their meal when the high-calorie items of their meals were replaced with potatoes.

Participants had overweight, obesity, or insulin resistance, but their blood glucose levels were not negatively affected by the potato consumption, and all of those involved actually lost weight.

People typically do not stick with a diet they don’t like or that isn't varied enough, but potatoes can be prepared in numerous ways for variety in a diet, and they are a fairly inexpensive vegetable to incorporate into a diet.

This is a summary of the article, "Low-Energy Dense Potato- and Bean-Based Diets Reduce Body Weight and Insulin Resistance: A Randomized, Feeding, Equivalence Trial," published in the Journal of Medicinal Food on November 11, 2022. The full article can be found on pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

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

Contrary to common belief, potatoes do not have a negative effect on blood glucose levels and can actually help people lose weight, according to researchers at Louisiana State University’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge.

What to know

Potatoes are filled with key nutrients, packed with health benefits, and do not increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, as has been assumed.

People tend to eat the same weight of food regardless of calorie content to feel full, so by eating foods that are heavier in weight and that are low in calories, you can reduce the number of calories you consume.

Study participants found themselves fuller, and full more quickly, and often did not even finish their meal when the high-calorie items of their meals were replaced with potatoes.

Participants had overweight, obesity, or insulin resistance, but their blood glucose levels were not negatively affected by the potato consumption, and all of those involved actually lost weight.

People typically do not stick with a diet they don’t like or that isn't varied enough, but potatoes can be prepared in numerous ways for variety in a diet, and they are a fairly inexpensive vegetable to incorporate into a diet.

This is a summary of the article, "Low-Energy Dense Potato- and Bean-Based Diets Reduce Body Weight and Insulin Resistance: A Randomized, Feeding, Equivalence Trial," published in the Journal of Medicinal Food on November 11, 2022. The full article can be found on pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

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

Childhood stress can change the brain negatively, according to a new study that says Black children are affected more because they experience more poverty and adversity.

“The researchers analyzed MRI scans to identify small differences in the volume of certain brain structures, and said these could accumulate as children age and play a role in the later development of mental health problems,” STAT News reported. “The finding, part of an emerging research field looking at how racism and other social factors may affect the physical architecture of the brain, may help explain longstanding racial disparities in the prevalence of psychiatric disorders such as PTSD.”

The study was published in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

Brain development is affected by “disparities faced by certain groups of people,” even among children as young as 9 years old, said Nathaniel Harnett, an assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and the study’s senior author. “If we’re going to treat the world as colorblind, we’re not going to create mental health solutions that are effective for all people.”

The study used evidence from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, which the National Institutes of Health established in 2015 to study the brains and experiences of thousands of American children through early adulthood.

Brain scans revealed that Black children had less gray matter in 11 of 14 brain areas that were examined. Disparities in 8 of the 14 brain areas were affected by childhood adversity, particularly poverty.

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

Childhood stress can change the brain negatively, according to a new study that says Black children are affected more because they experience more poverty and adversity.

“The researchers analyzed MRI scans to identify small differences in the volume of certain brain structures, and said these could accumulate as children age and play a role in the later development of mental health problems,” STAT News reported. “The finding, part of an emerging research field looking at how racism and other social factors may affect the physical architecture of the brain, may help explain longstanding racial disparities in the prevalence of psychiatric disorders such as PTSD.”

The study was published in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

Brain development is affected by “disparities faced by certain groups of people,” even among children as young as 9 years old, said Nathaniel Harnett, an assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and the study’s senior author. “If we’re going to treat the world as colorblind, we’re not going to create mental health solutions that are effective for all people.”

The study used evidence from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, which the National Institutes of Health established in 2015 to study the brains and experiences of thousands of American children through early adulthood.

Brain scans revealed that Black children had less gray matter in 11 of 14 brain areas that were examined. Disparities in 8 of the 14 brain areas were affected by childhood adversity, particularly poverty.

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

Childhood stress can change the brain negatively, according to a new study that says Black children are affected more because they experience more poverty and adversity.

“The researchers analyzed MRI scans to identify small differences in the volume of certain brain structures, and said these could accumulate as children age and play a role in the later development of mental health problems,” STAT News reported. “The finding, part of an emerging research field looking at how racism and other social factors may affect the physical architecture of the brain, may help explain longstanding racial disparities in the prevalence of psychiatric disorders such as PTSD.”

The study was published in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

Brain development is affected by “disparities faced by certain groups of people,” even among children as young as 9 years old, said Nathaniel Harnett, an assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and the study’s senior author. “If we’re going to treat the world as colorblind, we’re not going to create mental health solutions that are effective for all people.”

The study used evidence from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, which the National Institutes of Health established in 2015 to study the brains and experiences of thousands of American children through early adulthood.

Brain scans revealed that Black children had less gray matter in 11 of 14 brain areas that were examined. Disparities in 8 of the 14 brain areas were affected by childhood adversity, particularly poverty.

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

People with untreatable dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB) may soon have access to an investigational gene therapy delivered in a topical gel that is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration.

In a phase 3 study of patients with DEB, “we found that repeated topical application of B-VEC [beremagene geperpavec], an HSV-1–based gene therapy, resulted in a greater likelihood of complete wound healing than the topical application of placebo at up to 6 months,” the authors wrote. The study was published in The New England Journal of Medicine. “Longer and larger trials are warranted to determine the durability of effect and risks of this approach,” the authors noted.

“The results prove that B-VEC, the first topical in vivo gene therapy to reach late-stage development, can heal DEB,” senior author M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Stanford University, Redwood City, Calif., said in an interview.

“In the past, DEB was a very specialized disease that only a handful of dermatologists would see but could not do much to treat,” he said. “With gene therapy, many more dermatologists who may not be familiar with DEB will be able to treat these patients in their offices.” It is expected that nurses will be able to administer the treatment to patients at home, he added.
 

Rare, life-threatening, genetic blistering disease

DEB, a rare disease that affects one to three persons per million in the United States, is caused by mutations in the COL7A1 gene that encodes the alpha-1 chain of collagen type VII (C7) protein. C7 forms the anchoring fibrils that attach the epidermis to the underlying dermal connective tissue.

COL71A mutations that lead to defective, decreased, or absent C7 can make the skin so fragile it tears with the slightest touch. This has led to patients being called “butterfly children.” Epithelial tissues blister and scar, causing esophageal and genitourinary strictures, adhesion of digits, malnutrition, anemia, infection, and bothersome itch and pain. Morbidity and mortality are high. The leading cause of death in adults is chronic wounds leading to aggressive squamous cell cancers.
 

The first therapy for DEB, under FDA review

B-VEC restores C7 protein by using an engineered replication-defective herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells to restore functional C7 protein fibrils that stabilize the skin structure.

On the basis of manufacturing information submitted to the FDA in December 2022, the agency extended the date for a decision on approval by 3 months, to May 19, 2023, according to a statement from Krystal Biotech, the developer of B-VEC and the sponsor of the NEJM study.

Dr. Marinkovich and his colleagues conducted the double-blind, randomized, controlled GEM-3 trial of B-VEC at three sites in the United States. The 31 study participants ranged in age from 1 to 44 years (median age, 16 years) and had genetically confirmed DEB (30 with the recessive form and 1 with the dominant form).

For each participant, a pair of wounds was chosen that were matched in size, region, and appearance. The wounds within each pair were randomly allocated to receive weekly applications of either B-VEC or placebo gel for 26 weeks.

The results of the study included the following:

• Complete healing at 6 months occurred in 67% of the wounds treated with B-VEC (including a wound in the patient with dominant DEB), vs. 22% of those who received placebo (95% confidence interval [CI], 24-68; P = .002).
• Complete healing at 3 months occurred in 71% of the wounds treated with B-VEC, vs. 20% of those who received placebo (95% CI, 29-73; P < .001).
• The mean change from baseline to week 22 in pain severity during wound-dressing changes for patients aged 6 years and older, as determined on the basis of a visual analogue scale, was –0.88 with B-VEC, vs. –0.71 with placebo (adjusted least-squares mean difference, –0.61; 95% CI, –1.10 to –0.13); similar mean changes were seen at weeks 24 and 26.
• Among all patients, 58% had at least one adverse event. Most adverse events were mild or moderate. The most common were pruritus, chills, and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), which were reported in three patients each (SCC cases occurred at wound sites that had not been exposed to B-VEC or placebo). Serious adverse events, which were unrelated to the treatment, occurred in three patients: diarrhea, anemia, cellulitis, and a positive blood culture related to a hemodialysis catheter.

“With the ability to treat patients with topical gene therapy, dermatology is entering a new age of treatment possibilities,” Dr. Marinkovich said in the interview.

The researchers were surprised that the redosable in vivo gene therapy worked so well, he added. In vivo gene therapy has been plagued by the occurrence of immune reactions against the viral vectors used, Dr. Marinkovich explained. But because the herpes simplex virus has evolved to evade the immune system, his team could use the viral vector every week for 6 months without inflammatory reactions.

“The immune system’s inability to fight off or get rid of the herpes simplex vector makes it bad as a disease, but as a gene therapy vector, it provides a huge advantage,” he added.

Asked to comment on the results, Christen Ebens, MD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, whose clinical and research interests include EB, called the results exciting for patients, families, and doctors.

“Side effects were minimal, and importantly, use of the replication-incompetent HSV vector means that the payload gene does not integrate into the patient’s DNA,” Dr. Ebens, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “B-VEC is not a lifelong cure but potentially an effective maintenance therapy requiring repeated doses,” she added.

Although the researchers found no clinically important immune reactions to B-VEC, Dr. Ebens said she would like to see results from longer studies of the treatment. “We will want to see that patients do not produce neutralizing antibodies against B-VEC or its components, as such antibodies may yield the treatment ineffective or cause significant side effects.”

In an interview, Vanessa R. Holland, MD, associate clinical professor in the division of dermatology at UCLA Health, Burbank, Calif., who was not involved in the study, said that “topical replication-defective HSV-1 is a brilliant vector to deliver the depleted collagen.” She added that “such a vehicle may significantly alter management of these disorders and improve or extend lives by minimizing potentially fatal complications.”

Paras P. Vakharia, MD, PharmD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not involved in the study, was surprised by the high percentage of healed wounds and wounds that remained healed over time.

B-VEC for treating other conditions

Dr. Marinkovich noted that an ongoing phase 1 clinical trial, also sponsored by Krystal Biotech, is using the HSV-1 vector to deliver a different biologic (KB105) to establish dose and safety in the treatment of ichthyosis. He added that he would like to explore the use of B-VEC to treat DEB at mucosal surfaces, including inside the mouth, the eye, and the esophagus.

Authors of two editorials that accompanied the study also referred to other conditions B-VEC might treat.

This study “highlights potential future investigations,” David V. Schaffer, PhD, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering, bioengineering, and molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, wrotes in one of the editorials.

Important considerations he mentioned include the likelihood of the treatment becoming lifelong; the inability of HSV to penetrate intact skin, making B-VEC unsuitable for preventing the development of new wounds; and the inability of this treatment to treat EB lesions along the digestive tract. “This important trial builds on and extends gene-therapy successes to new targets and vectors, an advance for patients,” he added.

In the second editorial, Aimee S. Payne, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, raised the question of whether B-VEC’s clinical success for treating DEB can translate to other genetic diseases.

“Formulations for ophthalmic, oral-gastrointestinal, or respiratory delivery would be of great value to address the extracutaneous manifestations of epidermolysis bullosa and other genetic diseases,” she wrote.

Referring to an ongoing trial of a topical gene therapy for cystic fibrosis that is delivered by a nebulizer, Dr. Payne noted, “Ultimately, the completion of clinical trials such as this one will be required to determine whether HSV-1–mediated gene delivery can go more than skin deep.”

Earlier data and more details of the study were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology in July 2022.

Dr. Marinkovich has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors are employees of or have other financial relationships with Krystal Biotech, the study’s sponsor and the developer of beremagene geperpavec. Dr. Schaffer and Dr. Payne have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Ebens, Dr. Holland, and Dr. Vakharia have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with untreatable dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB) may soon have access to an investigational gene therapy delivered in a topical gel that is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration.

In a phase 3 study of patients with DEB, “we found that repeated topical application of B-VEC [beremagene geperpavec], an HSV-1–based gene therapy, resulted in a greater likelihood of complete wound healing than the topical application of placebo at up to 6 months,” the authors wrote. The study was published in The New England Journal of Medicine. “Longer and larger trials are warranted to determine the durability of effect and risks of this approach,” the authors noted.

“The results prove that B-VEC, the first topical in vivo gene therapy to reach late-stage development, can heal DEB,” senior author M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Stanford University, Redwood City, Calif., said in an interview.

“In the past, DEB was a very specialized disease that only a handful of dermatologists would see but could not do much to treat,” he said. “With gene therapy, many more dermatologists who may not be familiar with DEB will be able to treat these patients in their offices.” It is expected that nurses will be able to administer the treatment to patients at home, he added.
 

Rare, life-threatening, genetic blistering disease

DEB, a rare disease that affects one to three persons per million in the United States, is caused by mutations in the COL7A1 gene that encodes the alpha-1 chain of collagen type VII (C7) protein. C7 forms the anchoring fibrils that attach the epidermis to the underlying dermal connective tissue.

COL71A mutations that lead to defective, decreased, or absent C7 can make the skin so fragile it tears with the slightest touch. This has led to patients being called “butterfly children.” Epithelial tissues blister and scar, causing esophageal and genitourinary strictures, adhesion of digits, malnutrition, anemia, infection, and bothersome itch and pain. Morbidity and mortality are high. The leading cause of death in adults is chronic wounds leading to aggressive squamous cell cancers.
 

The first therapy for DEB, under FDA review

B-VEC restores C7 protein by using an engineered replication-defective herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells to restore functional C7 protein fibrils that stabilize the skin structure.

On the basis of manufacturing information submitted to the FDA in December 2022, the agency extended the date for a decision on approval by 3 months, to May 19, 2023, according to a statement from Krystal Biotech, the developer of B-VEC and the sponsor of the NEJM study.

Dr. Marinkovich and his colleagues conducted the double-blind, randomized, controlled GEM-3 trial of B-VEC at three sites in the United States. The 31 study participants ranged in age from 1 to 44 years (median age, 16 years) and had genetically confirmed DEB (30 with the recessive form and 1 with the dominant form).

For each participant, a pair of wounds was chosen that were matched in size, region, and appearance. The wounds within each pair were randomly allocated to receive weekly applications of either B-VEC or placebo gel for 26 weeks.

The results of the study included the following:

• Complete healing at 6 months occurred in 67% of the wounds treated with B-VEC (including a wound in the patient with dominant DEB), vs. 22% of those who received placebo (95% confidence interval [CI], 24-68; P = .002).
• Complete healing at 3 months occurred in 71% of the wounds treated with B-VEC, vs. 20% of those who received placebo (95% CI, 29-73; P < .001).
• The mean change from baseline to week 22 in pain severity during wound-dressing changes for patients aged 6 years and older, as determined on the basis of a visual analogue scale, was –0.88 with B-VEC, vs. –0.71 with placebo (adjusted least-squares mean difference, –0.61; 95% CI, –1.10 to –0.13); similar mean changes were seen at weeks 24 and 26.
• Among all patients, 58% had at least one adverse event. Most adverse events were mild or moderate. The most common were pruritus, chills, and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), which were reported in three patients each (SCC cases occurred at wound sites that had not been exposed to B-VEC or placebo). Serious adverse events, which were unrelated to the treatment, occurred in three patients: diarrhea, anemia, cellulitis, and a positive blood culture related to a hemodialysis catheter.

“With the ability to treat patients with topical gene therapy, dermatology is entering a new age of treatment possibilities,” Dr. Marinkovich said in the interview.

The researchers were surprised that the redosable in vivo gene therapy worked so well, he added. In vivo gene therapy has been plagued by the occurrence of immune reactions against the viral vectors used, Dr. Marinkovich explained. But because the herpes simplex virus has evolved to evade the immune system, his team could use the viral vector every week for 6 months without inflammatory reactions.

“The immune system’s inability to fight off or get rid of the herpes simplex vector makes it bad as a disease, but as a gene therapy vector, it provides a huge advantage,” he added.

Asked to comment on the results, Christen Ebens, MD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, whose clinical and research interests include EB, called the results exciting for patients, families, and doctors.

“Side effects were minimal, and importantly, use of the replication-incompetent HSV vector means that the payload gene does not integrate into the patient’s DNA,” Dr. Ebens, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “B-VEC is not a lifelong cure but potentially an effective maintenance therapy requiring repeated doses,” she added.

Although the researchers found no clinically important immune reactions to B-VEC, Dr. Ebens said she would like to see results from longer studies of the treatment. “We will want to see that patients do not produce neutralizing antibodies against B-VEC or its components, as such antibodies may yield the treatment ineffective or cause significant side effects.”

In an interview, Vanessa R. Holland, MD, associate clinical professor in the division of dermatology at UCLA Health, Burbank, Calif., who was not involved in the study, said that “topical replication-defective HSV-1 is a brilliant vector to deliver the depleted collagen.” She added that “such a vehicle may significantly alter management of these disorders and improve or extend lives by minimizing potentially fatal complications.”

Paras P. Vakharia, MD, PharmD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not involved in the study, was surprised by the high percentage of healed wounds and wounds that remained healed over time.

B-VEC for treating other conditions

Dr. Marinkovich noted that an ongoing phase 1 clinical trial, also sponsored by Krystal Biotech, is using the HSV-1 vector to deliver a different biologic (KB105) to establish dose and safety in the treatment of ichthyosis. He added that he would like to explore the use of B-VEC to treat DEB at mucosal surfaces, including inside the mouth, the eye, and the esophagus.

Authors of two editorials that accompanied the study also referred to other conditions B-VEC might treat.

This study “highlights potential future investigations,” David V. Schaffer, PhD, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering, bioengineering, and molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, wrotes in one of the editorials.

Important considerations he mentioned include the likelihood of the treatment becoming lifelong; the inability of HSV to penetrate intact skin, making B-VEC unsuitable for preventing the development of new wounds; and the inability of this treatment to treat EB lesions along the digestive tract. “This important trial builds on and extends gene-therapy successes to new targets and vectors, an advance for patients,” he added.

In the second editorial, Aimee S. Payne, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, raised the question of whether B-VEC’s clinical success for treating DEB can translate to other genetic diseases.

“Formulations for ophthalmic, oral-gastrointestinal, or respiratory delivery would be of great value to address the extracutaneous manifestations of epidermolysis bullosa and other genetic diseases,” she wrote.

Referring to an ongoing trial of a topical gene therapy for cystic fibrosis that is delivered by a nebulizer, Dr. Payne noted, “Ultimately, the completion of clinical trials such as this one will be required to determine whether HSV-1–mediated gene delivery can go more than skin deep.”

Earlier data and more details of the study were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology in July 2022.

Dr. Marinkovich has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors are employees of or have other financial relationships with Krystal Biotech, the study’s sponsor and the developer of beremagene geperpavec. Dr. Schaffer and Dr. Payne have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Ebens, Dr. Holland, and Dr. Vakharia have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with untreatable dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB) may soon have access to an investigational gene therapy delivered in a topical gel that is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration.

In a phase 3 study of patients with DEB, “we found that repeated topical application of B-VEC [beremagene geperpavec], an HSV-1–based gene therapy, resulted in a greater likelihood of complete wound healing than the topical application of placebo at up to 6 months,” the authors wrote. The study was published in The New England Journal of Medicine. “Longer and larger trials are warranted to determine the durability of effect and risks of this approach,” the authors noted.

“The results prove that B-VEC, the first topical in vivo gene therapy to reach late-stage development, can heal DEB,” senior author M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Stanford University, Redwood City, Calif., said in an interview.

“In the past, DEB was a very specialized disease that only a handful of dermatologists would see but could not do much to treat,” he said. “With gene therapy, many more dermatologists who may not be familiar with DEB will be able to treat these patients in their offices.” It is expected that nurses will be able to administer the treatment to patients at home, he added.
 

Rare, life-threatening, genetic blistering disease

DEB, a rare disease that affects one to three persons per million in the United States, is caused by mutations in the COL7A1 gene that encodes the alpha-1 chain of collagen type VII (C7) protein. C7 forms the anchoring fibrils that attach the epidermis to the underlying dermal connective tissue.

COL71A mutations that lead to defective, decreased, or absent C7 can make the skin so fragile it tears with the slightest touch. This has led to patients being called “butterfly children.” Epithelial tissues blister and scar, causing esophageal and genitourinary strictures, adhesion of digits, malnutrition, anemia, infection, and bothersome itch and pain. Morbidity and mortality are high. The leading cause of death in adults is chronic wounds leading to aggressive squamous cell cancers.
 

The first therapy for DEB, under FDA review

B-VEC restores C7 protein by using an engineered replication-defective herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells to restore functional C7 protein fibrils that stabilize the skin structure.

On the basis of manufacturing information submitted to the FDA in December 2022, the agency extended the date for a decision on approval by 3 months, to May 19, 2023, according to a statement from Krystal Biotech, the developer of B-VEC and the sponsor of the NEJM study.

Dr. Marinkovich and his colleagues conducted the double-blind, randomized, controlled GEM-3 trial of B-VEC at three sites in the United States. The 31 study participants ranged in age from 1 to 44 years (median age, 16 years) and had genetically confirmed DEB (30 with the recessive form and 1 with the dominant form).

For each participant, a pair of wounds was chosen that were matched in size, region, and appearance. The wounds within each pair were randomly allocated to receive weekly applications of either B-VEC or placebo gel for 26 weeks.

The results of the study included the following:

• Complete healing at 6 months occurred in 67% of the wounds treated with B-VEC (including a wound in the patient with dominant DEB), vs. 22% of those who received placebo (95% confidence interval [CI], 24-68; P = .002).
• Complete healing at 3 months occurred in 71% of the wounds treated with B-VEC, vs. 20% of those who received placebo (95% CI, 29-73; P < .001).
• The mean change from baseline to week 22 in pain severity during wound-dressing changes for patients aged 6 years and older, as determined on the basis of a visual analogue scale, was –0.88 with B-VEC, vs. –0.71 with placebo (adjusted least-squares mean difference, –0.61; 95% CI, –1.10 to –0.13); similar mean changes were seen at weeks 24 and 26.
• Among all patients, 58% had at least one adverse event. Most adverse events were mild or moderate. The most common were pruritus, chills, and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), which were reported in three patients each (SCC cases occurred at wound sites that had not been exposed to B-VEC or placebo). Serious adverse events, which were unrelated to the treatment, occurred in three patients: diarrhea, anemia, cellulitis, and a positive blood culture related to a hemodialysis catheter.

“With the ability to treat patients with topical gene therapy, dermatology is entering a new age of treatment possibilities,” Dr. Marinkovich said in the interview.

The researchers were surprised that the redosable in vivo gene therapy worked so well, he added. In vivo gene therapy has been plagued by the occurrence of immune reactions against the viral vectors used, Dr. Marinkovich explained. But because the herpes simplex virus has evolved to evade the immune system, his team could use the viral vector every week for 6 months without inflammatory reactions.

“The immune system’s inability to fight off or get rid of the herpes simplex vector makes it bad as a disease, but as a gene therapy vector, it provides a huge advantage,” he added.

Asked to comment on the results, Christen Ebens, MD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, whose clinical and research interests include EB, called the results exciting for patients, families, and doctors.

“Side effects were minimal, and importantly, use of the replication-incompetent HSV vector means that the payload gene does not integrate into the patient’s DNA,” Dr. Ebens, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “B-VEC is not a lifelong cure but potentially an effective maintenance therapy requiring repeated doses,” she added.

Although the researchers found no clinically important immune reactions to B-VEC, Dr. Ebens said she would like to see results from longer studies of the treatment. “We will want to see that patients do not produce neutralizing antibodies against B-VEC or its components, as such antibodies may yield the treatment ineffective or cause significant side effects.”

In an interview, Vanessa R. Holland, MD, associate clinical professor in the division of dermatology at UCLA Health, Burbank, Calif., who was not involved in the study, said that “topical replication-defective HSV-1 is a brilliant vector to deliver the depleted collagen.” She added that “such a vehicle may significantly alter management of these disorders and improve or extend lives by minimizing potentially fatal complications.”

Paras P. Vakharia, MD, PharmD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not involved in the study, was surprised by the high percentage of healed wounds and wounds that remained healed over time.

B-VEC for treating other conditions

Dr. Marinkovich noted that an ongoing phase 1 clinical trial, also sponsored by Krystal Biotech, is using the HSV-1 vector to deliver a different biologic (KB105) to establish dose and safety in the treatment of ichthyosis. He added that he would like to explore the use of B-VEC to treat DEB at mucosal surfaces, including inside the mouth, the eye, and the esophagus.

Authors of two editorials that accompanied the study also referred to other conditions B-VEC might treat.

This study “highlights potential future investigations,” David V. Schaffer, PhD, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering, bioengineering, and molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, wrotes in one of the editorials.

Important considerations he mentioned include the likelihood of the treatment becoming lifelong; the inability of HSV to penetrate intact skin, making B-VEC unsuitable for preventing the development of new wounds; and the inability of this treatment to treat EB lesions along the digestive tract. “This important trial builds on and extends gene-therapy successes to new targets and vectors, an advance for patients,” he added.

In the second editorial, Aimee S. Payne, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, raised the question of whether B-VEC’s clinical success for treating DEB can translate to other genetic diseases.

“Formulations for ophthalmic, oral-gastrointestinal, or respiratory delivery would be of great value to address the extracutaneous manifestations of epidermolysis bullosa and other genetic diseases,” she wrote.

Referring to an ongoing trial of a topical gene therapy for cystic fibrosis that is delivered by a nebulizer, Dr. Payne noted, “Ultimately, the completion of clinical trials such as this one will be required to determine whether HSV-1–mediated gene delivery can go more than skin deep.”

Earlier data and more details of the study were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology in July 2022.

Dr. Marinkovich has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors are employees of or have other financial relationships with Krystal Biotech, the study’s sponsor and the developer of beremagene geperpavec. Dr. Schaffer and Dr. Payne have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Ebens, Dr. Holland, and Dr. Vakharia have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As physicians well know, magic wands don’t exist. If they did, every patient would recover in the exam room, prior authorization wouldn’t exist, and continuing medical education credits would be printed on bearer bonds.

But in the spirit of suspended disbelief, we asked physicians and other contributors what their three wishes would be for their patients, practice/hospital, and health systems. Because, hey – we all need to dream.
 

Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct professor of pediatrics and community and family medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.
Patients: An end to gun violence.
Practice/hospital: Adequate staffing and pediatric bed availability.
Health system: Universal access to health insurance.

Sarah G. Candler, MD, MPH, care team medical director and director of academic relations, Iora Primary Care, Northside Clinic, Houston
Patients: Systems of health that start with communities of safety, including access to affordable housing, food, transportation, and health care.
Practice/hospital: I.N.T.E.R.O.P.E.R.A.B.I.L.I.T.Y.
Health system: Clinician leadership that has the power (often aka funding) to do what’s right, not just what’s right in front of us.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, bioethicist, New York University Langone Health
Patients: I wish for patients in the United States greater access to affordable primary care. There are still too many people without insurance or a reasonably accessible quality provider. And I especially wish for the rapid expansion of affordable training programs to meet staffing needs, including more scholarships, 3-year programs, and more new primary care–oriented schools.
Hospital: Increased staffing, especially nursing. There are too many retirements, too much burnout, and too much privatization into boutique practices to ensure the ability to provide high-quality, safe, patient-oriented care.
Health system: I wish for health systems to seriously move into electronic medicine. While billing has become electronic, there is still much to be done to supplement diagnosis, training, and standardized data collection on key metrics. Systems are not yet behaving in a manner consistent with the hype in this regard.

Stephen Devries, MD, executive director, Gaples Institute (nonprofit) and adjunct associate professor of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston
Patients: Patients continue to demand more from their health care professionals and insist that they are offered evidence-based counseling on nutrition and lifestyle strategies.
Practice: Quality-based reimbursement for medical services will take hold that will incentivize much-needed preventive care.
Hospital: Hospitals will more fully embrace the role of serving as true centers of health and focus as much on preventive medicine as on the more lucrative areas of high-tech treatment.

Peter D. Friedmann, MD, MPH, chief research officer, Baystate Health, Springfield, Mass.
Seconded by: Elisabeth Poorman, MD, general internist, University of Washington Clinic, Kent
Patients: Don’t forget the ongoing epidemic of substance use disorder, a major cause of premature mortality. Descheduling of cannabis and expungement of cannabis-related convictions.
Practice/hospital: Commitment of hospitals and practices to address stigma and ensure delivery of medications for opioid use disorder in primary care, the emergency department, and inpatient settings.
Health system: Reform of antiquated methadone regulations to permit office-based prescription and pharmacy dispensing to treat opioid use disorder, as is the case in most of the world.

Robert Glatter, MD, emergency physician, New York
Patients: I want all patients to understand the enormous strain the health care system has been under – not just with the pandemic, the tripledemic, and mpox [previously called monkeypox], but well before the onset of these public health crises.
Hospital: The medical profession has endured not only burnout but a growing mental health crisis, staffing shortages, a physician addiction crisis, and increased attrition in the decade leading up to the pandemic. The pandemic was like a punch in the gut, occurring at the most inopportune time one could imagine.
Health system: The intersection of health and the state of our public health deserves important mention. Unless we take action to bolster our public health infrastructure, our health care system will be in jeopardy, unable to handle the next pandemic, which could be just around the corner.

William E. Golden, MD, medical director of Arkansas Medicaid, professor of medicine and public health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients: Affordable options for diabetes and obesity management.
Health system: Greater investment by health systems and third-party payers in primary care infrastructure.

Gregory A. Hood, MD, Baptist Health, Lexington, Ky.
Patients: To embrace the gift of getting out in the world, being active, and connecting with others – having put down the screens.
Health system: To be freed from the financial gamesmanship of the insurers as they continue to serve their goals of promoting their hedge fund investing over meaningful and productive partnering with primary care physicians, and that they gain insight that they are one of the main reasons they can’t find PCPs to connect with to render care in disadvantaged environments – because they made it economically impossible to do so.

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients/Health system: I would wish for staged implementation of universal basic health coverage for all, perhaps closest to the French or Canadian model. This would need to be coupled with expanded funding for nursing education, graduate medical education, and tracing of other health-related professionals.

Harvey Hsu, MD, Banner Health, Phoenix
Patients: More clear guidelines that are simple to understand. This can apply to colonoscopy (now age 45), immunizations, blood pressure goals. I wish medications were not as expensive so patients can take the best medicine for them and not stop taking them when they hit their donut hole in coverage.
Practice: We have been functioning on a leaner basis to cut down costs. When the pandemic hit, turnover was high and we lost PAs, nurses, front-office staff, and physicians. Having adequate staffing is probably number one on many lists. One way we dealt with lack of staffing was converting in-person visits to telehealth. Video visits are paid the same as in-person visits, but if the patient could not get their video to work, then it would be a telephone visit. Now many insurances do not even pay for telephone visits. So I would wish that we could still be reimbursed for telehealth visits.
Health system: I would wish for our health system to recognize the extra work required to take care of patients while improving quality and meeting quality measures. Allowing more time for patient visits could be one way to meet those goals or having more support staff to make sure patients get their colonoscopy/mammograms done, improve their sugars, and take their medications.

Jan L. Shifren, MD, Vincent Trustees Professor, obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, Harvard Medical School, and director of the Midlife Women’s Health Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
Patients: I wish for patients to be actively involved in all aspects of their care, well informed with shared decision-making.
Practice: I wish for the enormous time demands of electronic medical records and documentation to not distract from the pleasure of caring for patients.
Health system: Patient care remains at the center of decisions and programs.

Timothy J. Joos, MD, MPH, internal medicine/pediatrics, Seattle
Health system: I wish someone could figure out how we could be reimbursed for the quality of care we provide instead of the volume of patients we see. I wish EMRs could become less complicated and more user-friendly rather than needing advanced training to use.

Peter Kovacs, MD, medical director, Kaali Institute IVF Center, Budapest
Patients: I work as an infertility specialist, so when we talk about infectious diseases and associated risks, we talk about a minimum of two (female and male partner) and ideally three (plus the pregnancy) individuals. We have learned that SARS-CoV-2 affects reproductive health. It may compromise sperm production, could delay fertility treatment, could be associated with lower success rates; and if the treatment is successful, it may harm the pregnant woman/fetus/newborn. The best preventive measure that we can offer is vaccination. One cannot overemphasize the importance of preventive measures, paying attention to personal hygiene and social distancing. Therefore, I wish those planning to become pregnant to listen to their health care provider and accept the recommended vaccines to minimize the risk of getting infected and to minimize the risk for severe disease, especially if one undergoes successful fertility treatment and achieves a long-desired pregnancy.
Practice: During the 2022 calendar year we had many days when one or more employees were out of work on sick leave. This puts extra stress on the others to allow uncompromised work in the clinic. In addition, we all have to work in a less-comfortable environment if we consider mask use every day, all day. For health care workers, vaccination is mandated but many still are affected by milder forms of coronavirus infection and other respiratory diseases. Therefore, I wish my colleagues patience toward the preventive measures to lower the individual risk for infections. As a result, hopefully we will have a less stressful 2023.
Health system: Many resources had to be delegated to dealing with acute and chronic COVID, and this was at the expense of routine daily elective and preventive medical services. I wish the health care system to return to normal daily operations, to have the personnel and financial resources to carry on with the required preventive and elective medical services to avoid long-term consequences of not being able to provide such services. It would be sad if we had to treat otherwise preventable illnesses in the upcoming years that went undiagnosed and/or were not properly managed due to limited resources as the result of the pandemic.

Alan R. Nelson, MD, internist-endocrinologist, retired
Patients: Expansion of the FDA’s authority into over-the-counter drugs, including the veracity of their advertising claims.
Practice: Make diabetes drugs available at a reasonable cost.
Health system: With the expansion of Medicaid eligibility during COVID-19 coming to a close, federal government actions are necessary for those who once again have been dropped from coverage to have their legitimate needs met.

Kevin Powell, MD, PhD, St. Louis
Patients: To be cared for and about, and not just medically, even when illness strikes and health fails.
Hospitals: To hear the thankfulness of a grateful public for the care you provide, and to hear that above the angry noise of outraged individuals who spout vitriol and focus on how they believe others have harmed them.
Health system: A truer understanding of mercy and justice.

Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, director, department of adolescent medicine, Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Seconded by: M. Susan Jay, MD, professor of pediatrics, chief of adolescent medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
My wish for patients, hospital, and system: health, calm, and grace.

Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE, the IVF Center, Winter Park, Fla.
Patients: To be proactive in their health care and be their own advocates. Question when unclear and only consult credible resources.
Practice/hospital: Improve support of physicians and all health care providers to allow more input in their practice operations and growth.
Health system: Reduce interference of the “business of medicine” and ensure that the patient experience is the priority.

Charles P. Vega, MD, University of California, Irvine
Three minutes on a routine basis for everyone in health care to reflect on our blessings and the honor and gravity – as well as joy – that are integral to health care. Three minutes that will also help us to recognize our challenges and put them in the proper context. I know 3 minutes is not meeting any standard for reflective practice. But it’s 3 minutes more than I have right now.

Karen Breach Washington, MD, medical director of WellCare of North Carolina/Centene, Charlotte
Seconded by: Lillian M. Beard, MD, physician director, Children’s Pediatricians and Associates, Silver Spring, Md.
Patients: Access to affordable health care.
Hospital: Resources to care for patients (sufficient number of beds and a healthy staff).
Health system: Equity for all.

Andrew Wilner, MD, host of the podcast “The Art of Medicine with Dr. Andrew Wilner,” www.andrewwilner.com
Let’s put patients first! Too many extraneous considerations other than the patient’s best interest obstruct optimal patient care.

Here are just a few examples of patients coming last instead of first.

• If a patient needs to start a new medication in hospital, we shouldn’t have to wait until the patient is an outpatient because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If there’s a new medication that’s better than the old medication, we shouldn’t be forced to choose the old medication and provide inferior care because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If patients need to stay in hospital, we shouldn’t be pressured to discharge them because the hospital has decided that decreasing “length of stay” is its highest priority.

Dr. Francis Peabody said it best in 1927: “The secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.” How hard is that?

In 2023, why don’t we follow Dr. Peabody’s sage advice from nearly 100 years ago and see what happens?
 

James M. Wooten, PharmD, University of Missouri–Kansas City, University Health, Kansas City, Mo.
Patients: I want patients to understand and properly realize the advantage of vaccinations – not only for COVID-19 but also for influenza. There is so much misinformation that I spend a lot of time trying to convince patients to get vaccinated. Most patients don’t realize that through their lives, most of them have already been vaccinated for something just to be able to attend school. How the COVID-19 vaccine created so much stigma makes little sense to me. I also want patients to understand that COVID-19 vaccination and boosters do not always prevent infection but will many times prevent severe infection. I believe that better patient communication and education is the key and will always be the key to improving vaccination numbers. Not only communicating and educating patients on vaccination itself but also making patients realize that personal vaccination decisions may affect what happens to your neighbor. Allowing infection means that you may be more likely to infect someone else. As a society, we must take care of each other.
Health system: It will be interesting to see what happens when vaccines are no longer reimbursed by the federal government. Understanding which vaccines work best and are better tolerated will be key to choosing appropriate vaccine brands. Health care providers will need to be very selective regarding which vaccines are selected for formulary inclusion. Thorough meta-analysis studies must be done to provide more evaluable information to allow for appropriate selection. “Knowledge is power!” Appropriate knowledge will help distinguish which vaccines work best for various patient populations.

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

As physicians well know, magic wands don’t exist. If they did, every patient would recover in the exam room, prior authorization wouldn’t exist, and continuing medical education credits would be printed on bearer bonds.

But in the spirit of suspended disbelief, we asked physicians and other contributors what their three wishes would be for their patients, practice/hospital, and health systems. Because, hey – we all need to dream.
 

Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct professor of pediatrics and community and family medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.
Patients: An end to gun violence.
Practice/hospital: Adequate staffing and pediatric bed availability.
Health system: Universal access to health insurance.

Sarah G. Candler, MD, MPH, care team medical director and director of academic relations, Iora Primary Care, Northside Clinic, Houston
Patients: Systems of health that start with communities of safety, including access to affordable housing, food, transportation, and health care.
Practice/hospital: I.N.T.E.R.O.P.E.R.A.B.I.L.I.T.Y.
Health system: Clinician leadership that has the power (often aka funding) to do what’s right, not just what’s right in front of us.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, bioethicist, New York University Langone Health
Patients: I wish for patients in the United States greater access to affordable primary care. There are still too many people without insurance or a reasonably accessible quality provider. And I especially wish for the rapid expansion of affordable training programs to meet staffing needs, including more scholarships, 3-year programs, and more new primary care–oriented schools.
Hospital: Increased staffing, especially nursing. There are too many retirements, too much burnout, and too much privatization into boutique practices to ensure the ability to provide high-quality, safe, patient-oriented care.
Health system: I wish for health systems to seriously move into electronic medicine. While billing has become electronic, there is still much to be done to supplement diagnosis, training, and standardized data collection on key metrics. Systems are not yet behaving in a manner consistent with the hype in this regard.

Stephen Devries, MD, executive director, Gaples Institute (nonprofit) and adjunct associate professor of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston
Patients: Patients continue to demand more from their health care professionals and insist that they are offered evidence-based counseling on nutrition and lifestyle strategies.
Practice: Quality-based reimbursement for medical services will take hold that will incentivize much-needed preventive care.
Hospital: Hospitals will more fully embrace the role of serving as true centers of health and focus as much on preventive medicine as on the more lucrative areas of high-tech treatment.

Peter D. Friedmann, MD, MPH, chief research officer, Baystate Health, Springfield, Mass.
Seconded by: Elisabeth Poorman, MD, general internist, University of Washington Clinic, Kent
Patients: Don’t forget the ongoing epidemic of substance use disorder, a major cause of premature mortality. Descheduling of cannabis and expungement of cannabis-related convictions.
Practice/hospital: Commitment of hospitals and practices to address stigma and ensure delivery of medications for opioid use disorder in primary care, the emergency department, and inpatient settings.
Health system: Reform of antiquated methadone regulations to permit office-based prescription and pharmacy dispensing to treat opioid use disorder, as is the case in most of the world.

Robert Glatter, MD, emergency physician, New York
Patients: I want all patients to understand the enormous strain the health care system has been under – not just with the pandemic, the tripledemic, and mpox [previously called monkeypox], but well before the onset of these public health crises.
Hospital: The medical profession has endured not only burnout but a growing mental health crisis, staffing shortages, a physician addiction crisis, and increased attrition in the decade leading up to the pandemic. The pandemic was like a punch in the gut, occurring at the most inopportune time one could imagine.
Health system: The intersection of health and the state of our public health deserves important mention. Unless we take action to bolster our public health infrastructure, our health care system will be in jeopardy, unable to handle the next pandemic, which could be just around the corner.

William E. Golden, MD, medical director of Arkansas Medicaid, professor of medicine and public health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients: Affordable options for diabetes and obesity management.
Health system: Greater investment by health systems and third-party payers in primary care infrastructure.

Gregory A. Hood, MD, Baptist Health, Lexington, Ky.
Patients: To embrace the gift of getting out in the world, being active, and connecting with others – having put down the screens.
Health system: To be freed from the financial gamesmanship of the insurers as they continue to serve their goals of promoting their hedge fund investing over meaningful and productive partnering with primary care physicians, and that they gain insight that they are one of the main reasons they can’t find PCPs to connect with to render care in disadvantaged environments – because they made it economically impossible to do so.

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients/Health system: I would wish for staged implementation of universal basic health coverage for all, perhaps closest to the French or Canadian model. This would need to be coupled with expanded funding for nursing education, graduate medical education, and tracing of other health-related professionals.

Harvey Hsu, MD, Banner Health, Phoenix
Patients: More clear guidelines that are simple to understand. This can apply to colonoscopy (now age 45), immunizations, blood pressure goals. I wish medications were not as expensive so patients can take the best medicine for them and not stop taking them when they hit their donut hole in coverage.
Practice: We have been functioning on a leaner basis to cut down costs. When the pandemic hit, turnover was high and we lost PAs, nurses, front-office staff, and physicians. Having adequate staffing is probably number one on many lists. One way we dealt with lack of staffing was converting in-person visits to telehealth. Video visits are paid the same as in-person visits, but if the patient could not get their video to work, then it would be a telephone visit. Now many insurances do not even pay for telephone visits. So I would wish that we could still be reimbursed for telehealth visits.
Health system: I would wish for our health system to recognize the extra work required to take care of patients while improving quality and meeting quality measures. Allowing more time for patient visits could be one way to meet those goals or having more support staff to make sure patients get their colonoscopy/mammograms done, improve their sugars, and take their medications.

Jan L. Shifren, MD, Vincent Trustees Professor, obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, Harvard Medical School, and director of the Midlife Women’s Health Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
Patients: I wish for patients to be actively involved in all aspects of their care, well informed with shared decision-making.
Practice: I wish for the enormous time demands of electronic medical records and documentation to not distract from the pleasure of caring for patients.
Health system: Patient care remains at the center of decisions and programs.

Timothy J. Joos, MD, MPH, internal medicine/pediatrics, Seattle
Health system: I wish someone could figure out how we could be reimbursed for the quality of care we provide instead of the volume of patients we see. I wish EMRs could become less complicated and more user-friendly rather than needing advanced training to use.

Peter Kovacs, MD, medical director, Kaali Institute IVF Center, Budapest
Patients: I work as an infertility specialist, so when we talk about infectious diseases and associated risks, we talk about a minimum of two (female and male partner) and ideally three (plus the pregnancy) individuals. We have learned that SARS-CoV-2 affects reproductive health. It may compromise sperm production, could delay fertility treatment, could be associated with lower success rates; and if the treatment is successful, it may harm the pregnant woman/fetus/newborn. The best preventive measure that we can offer is vaccination. One cannot overemphasize the importance of preventive measures, paying attention to personal hygiene and social distancing. Therefore, I wish those planning to become pregnant to listen to their health care provider and accept the recommended vaccines to minimize the risk of getting infected and to minimize the risk for severe disease, especially if one undergoes successful fertility treatment and achieves a long-desired pregnancy.
Practice: During the 2022 calendar year we had many days when one or more employees were out of work on sick leave. This puts extra stress on the others to allow uncompromised work in the clinic. In addition, we all have to work in a less-comfortable environment if we consider mask use every day, all day. For health care workers, vaccination is mandated but many still are affected by milder forms of coronavirus infection and other respiratory diseases. Therefore, I wish my colleagues patience toward the preventive measures to lower the individual risk for infections. As a result, hopefully we will have a less stressful 2023.
Health system: Many resources had to be delegated to dealing with acute and chronic COVID, and this was at the expense of routine daily elective and preventive medical services. I wish the health care system to return to normal daily operations, to have the personnel and financial resources to carry on with the required preventive and elective medical services to avoid long-term consequences of not being able to provide such services. It would be sad if we had to treat otherwise preventable illnesses in the upcoming years that went undiagnosed and/or were not properly managed due to limited resources as the result of the pandemic.

Alan R. Nelson, MD, internist-endocrinologist, retired
Patients: Expansion of the FDA’s authority into over-the-counter drugs, including the veracity of their advertising claims.
Practice: Make diabetes drugs available at a reasonable cost.
Health system: With the expansion of Medicaid eligibility during COVID-19 coming to a close, federal government actions are necessary for those who once again have been dropped from coverage to have their legitimate needs met.

Kevin Powell, MD, PhD, St. Louis
Patients: To be cared for and about, and not just medically, even when illness strikes and health fails.
Hospitals: To hear the thankfulness of a grateful public for the care you provide, and to hear that above the angry noise of outraged individuals who spout vitriol and focus on how they believe others have harmed them.
Health system: A truer understanding of mercy and justice.

Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, director, department of adolescent medicine, Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Seconded by: M. Susan Jay, MD, professor of pediatrics, chief of adolescent medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
My wish for patients, hospital, and system: health, calm, and grace.

Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE, the IVF Center, Winter Park, Fla.
Patients: To be proactive in their health care and be their own advocates. Question when unclear and only consult credible resources.
Practice/hospital: Improve support of physicians and all health care providers to allow more input in their practice operations and growth.
Health system: Reduce interference of the “business of medicine” and ensure that the patient experience is the priority.

Charles P. Vega, MD, University of California, Irvine
Three minutes on a routine basis for everyone in health care to reflect on our blessings and the honor and gravity – as well as joy – that are integral to health care. Three minutes that will also help us to recognize our challenges and put them in the proper context. I know 3 minutes is not meeting any standard for reflective practice. But it’s 3 minutes more than I have right now.

Karen Breach Washington, MD, medical director of WellCare of North Carolina/Centene, Charlotte
Seconded by: Lillian M. Beard, MD, physician director, Children’s Pediatricians and Associates, Silver Spring, Md.
Patients: Access to affordable health care.
Hospital: Resources to care for patients (sufficient number of beds and a healthy staff).
Health system: Equity for all.

Andrew Wilner, MD, host of the podcast “The Art of Medicine with Dr. Andrew Wilner,” www.andrewwilner.com
Let’s put patients first! Too many extraneous considerations other than the patient’s best interest obstruct optimal patient care.

Here are just a few examples of patients coming last instead of first.

• If a patient needs to start a new medication in hospital, we shouldn’t have to wait until the patient is an outpatient because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If there’s a new medication that’s better than the old medication, we shouldn’t be forced to choose the old medication and provide inferior care because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If patients need to stay in hospital, we shouldn’t be pressured to discharge them because the hospital has decided that decreasing “length of stay” is its highest priority.

Dr. Francis Peabody said it best in 1927: “The secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.” How hard is that?

In 2023, why don’t we follow Dr. Peabody’s sage advice from nearly 100 years ago and see what happens?
 

James M. Wooten, PharmD, University of Missouri–Kansas City, University Health, Kansas City, Mo.
Patients: I want patients to understand and properly realize the advantage of vaccinations – not only for COVID-19 but also for influenza. There is so much misinformation that I spend a lot of time trying to convince patients to get vaccinated. Most patients don’t realize that through their lives, most of them have already been vaccinated for something just to be able to attend school. How the COVID-19 vaccine created so much stigma makes little sense to me. I also want patients to understand that COVID-19 vaccination and boosters do not always prevent infection but will many times prevent severe infection. I believe that better patient communication and education is the key and will always be the key to improving vaccination numbers. Not only communicating and educating patients on vaccination itself but also making patients realize that personal vaccination decisions may affect what happens to your neighbor. Allowing infection means that you may be more likely to infect someone else. As a society, we must take care of each other.
Health system: It will be interesting to see what happens when vaccines are no longer reimbursed by the federal government. Understanding which vaccines work best and are better tolerated will be key to choosing appropriate vaccine brands. Health care providers will need to be very selective regarding which vaccines are selected for formulary inclusion. Thorough meta-analysis studies must be done to provide more evaluable information to allow for appropriate selection. “Knowledge is power!” Appropriate knowledge will help distinguish which vaccines work best for various patient populations.

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

As physicians well know, magic wands don’t exist. If they did, every patient would recover in the exam room, prior authorization wouldn’t exist, and continuing medical education credits would be printed on bearer bonds.

But in the spirit of suspended disbelief, we asked physicians and other contributors what their three wishes would be for their patients, practice/hospital, and health systems. Because, hey – we all need to dream.
 

Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct professor of pediatrics and community and family medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.
Patients: An end to gun violence.
Practice/hospital: Adequate staffing and pediatric bed availability.
Health system: Universal access to health insurance.

Sarah G. Candler, MD, MPH, care team medical director and director of academic relations, Iora Primary Care, Northside Clinic, Houston
Patients: Systems of health that start with communities of safety, including access to affordable housing, food, transportation, and health care.
Practice/hospital: I.N.T.E.R.O.P.E.R.A.B.I.L.I.T.Y.
Health system: Clinician leadership that has the power (often aka funding) to do what’s right, not just what’s right in front of us.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, bioethicist, New York University Langone Health
Patients: I wish for patients in the United States greater access to affordable primary care. There are still too many people without insurance or a reasonably accessible quality provider. And I especially wish for the rapid expansion of affordable training programs to meet staffing needs, including more scholarships, 3-year programs, and more new primary care–oriented schools.
Hospital: Increased staffing, especially nursing. There are too many retirements, too much burnout, and too much privatization into boutique practices to ensure the ability to provide high-quality, safe, patient-oriented care.
Health system: I wish for health systems to seriously move into electronic medicine. While billing has become electronic, there is still much to be done to supplement diagnosis, training, and standardized data collection on key metrics. Systems are not yet behaving in a manner consistent with the hype in this regard.

Stephen Devries, MD, executive director, Gaples Institute (nonprofit) and adjunct associate professor of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston
Patients: Patients continue to demand more from their health care professionals and insist that they are offered evidence-based counseling on nutrition and lifestyle strategies.
Practice: Quality-based reimbursement for medical services will take hold that will incentivize much-needed preventive care.
Hospital: Hospitals will more fully embrace the role of serving as true centers of health and focus as much on preventive medicine as on the more lucrative areas of high-tech treatment.

Peter D. Friedmann, MD, MPH, chief research officer, Baystate Health, Springfield, Mass.
Seconded by: Elisabeth Poorman, MD, general internist, University of Washington Clinic, Kent
Patients: Don’t forget the ongoing epidemic of substance use disorder, a major cause of premature mortality. Descheduling of cannabis and expungement of cannabis-related convictions.
Practice/hospital: Commitment of hospitals and practices to address stigma and ensure delivery of medications for opioid use disorder in primary care, the emergency department, and inpatient settings.
Health system: Reform of antiquated methadone regulations to permit office-based prescription and pharmacy dispensing to treat opioid use disorder, as is the case in most of the world.

Robert Glatter, MD, emergency physician, New York
Patients: I want all patients to understand the enormous strain the health care system has been under – not just with the pandemic, the tripledemic, and mpox [previously called monkeypox], but well before the onset of these public health crises.
Hospital: The medical profession has endured not only burnout but a growing mental health crisis, staffing shortages, a physician addiction crisis, and increased attrition in the decade leading up to the pandemic. The pandemic was like a punch in the gut, occurring at the most inopportune time one could imagine.
Health system: The intersection of health and the state of our public health deserves important mention. Unless we take action to bolster our public health infrastructure, our health care system will be in jeopardy, unable to handle the next pandemic, which could be just around the corner.

William E. Golden, MD, medical director of Arkansas Medicaid, professor of medicine and public health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients: Affordable options for diabetes and obesity management.
Health system: Greater investment by health systems and third-party payers in primary care infrastructure.

Gregory A. Hood, MD, Baptist Health, Lexington, Ky.
Patients: To embrace the gift of getting out in the world, being active, and connecting with others – having put down the screens.
Health system: To be freed from the financial gamesmanship of the insurers as they continue to serve their goals of promoting their hedge fund investing over meaningful and productive partnering with primary care physicians, and that they gain insight that they are one of the main reasons they can’t find PCPs to connect with to render care in disadvantaged environments – because they made it economically impossible to do so.

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients/Health system: I would wish for staged implementation of universal basic health coverage for all, perhaps closest to the French or Canadian model. This would need to be coupled with expanded funding for nursing education, graduate medical education, and tracing of other health-related professionals.

Harvey Hsu, MD, Banner Health, Phoenix
Patients: More clear guidelines that are simple to understand. This can apply to colonoscopy (now age 45), immunizations, blood pressure goals. I wish medications were not as expensive so patients can take the best medicine for them and not stop taking them when they hit their donut hole in coverage.
Practice: We have been functioning on a leaner basis to cut down costs. When the pandemic hit, turnover was high and we lost PAs, nurses, front-office staff, and physicians. Having adequate staffing is probably number one on many lists. One way we dealt with lack of staffing was converting in-person visits to telehealth. Video visits are paid the same as in-person visits, but if the patient could not get their video to work, then it would be a telephone visit. Now many insurances do not even pay for telephone visits. So I would wish that we could still be reimbursed for telehealth visits.
Health system: I would wish for our health system to recognize the extra work required to take care of patients while improving quality and meeting quality measures. Allowing more time for patient visits could be one way to meet those goals or having more support staff to make sure patients get their colonoscopy/mammograms done, improve their sugars, and take their medications.

Jan L. Shifren, MD, Vincent Trustees Professor, obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, Harvard Medical School, and director of the Midlife Women’s Health Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
Patients: I wish for patients to be actively involved in all aspects of their care, well informed with shared decision-making.
Practice: I wish for the enormous time demands of electronic medical records and documentation to not distract from the pleasure of caring for patients.
Health system: Patient care remains at the center of decisions and programs.

Timothy J. Joos, MD, MPH, internal medicine/pediatrics, Seattle
Health system: I wish someone could figure out how we could be reimbursed for the quality of care we provide instead of the volume of patients we see. I wish EMRs could become less complicated and more user-friendly rather than needing advanced training to use.

Peter Kovacs, MD, medical director, Kaali Institute IVF Center, Budapest
Patients: I work as an infertility specialist, so when we talk about infectious diseases and associated risks, we talk about a minimum of two (female and male partner) and ideally three (plus the pregnancy) individuals. We have learned that SARS-CoV-2 affects reproductive health. It may compromise sperm production, could delay fertility treatment, could be associated with lower success rates; and if the treatment is successful, it may harm the pregnant woman/fetus/newborn. The best preventive measure that we can offer is vaccination. One cannot overemphasize the importance of preventive measures, paying attention to personal hygiene and social distancing. Therefore, I wish those planning to become pregnant to listen to their health care provider and accept the recommended vaccines to minimize the risk of getting infected and to minimize the risk for severe disease, especially if one undergoes successful fertility treatment and achieves a long-desired pregnancy.
Practice: During the 2022 calendar year we had many days when one or more employees were out of work on sick leave. This puts extra stress on the others to allow uncompromised work in the clinic. In addition, we all have to work in a less-comfortable environment if we consider mask use every day, all day. For health care workers, vaccination is mandated but many still are affected by milder forms of coronavirus infection and other respiratory diseases. Therefore, I wish my colleagues patience toward the preventive measures to lower the individual risk for infections. As a result, hopefully we will have a less stressful 2023.
Health system: Many resources had to be delegated to dealing with acute and chronic COVID, and this was at the expense of routine daily elective and preventive medical services. I wish the health care system to return to normal daily operations, to have the personnel and financial resources to carry on with the required preventive and elective medical services to avoid long-term consequences of not being able to provide such services. It would be sad if we had to treat otherwise preventable illnesses in the upcoming years that went undiagnosed and/or were not properly managed due to limited resources as the result of the pandemic.

Alan R. Nelson, MD, internist-endocrinologist, retired
Patients: Expansion of the FDA’s authority into over-the-counter drugs, including the veracity of their advertising claims.
Practice: Make diabetes drugs available at a reasonable cost.
Health system: With the expansion of Medicaid eligibility during COVID-19 coming to a close, federal government actions are necessary for those who once again have been dropped from coverage to have their legitimate needs met.

Kevin Powell, MD, PhD, St. Louis
Patients: To be cared for and about, and not just medically, even when illness strikes and health fails.
Hospitals: To hear the thankfulness of a grateful public for the care you provide, and to hear that above the angry noise of outraged individuals who spout vitriol and focus on how they believe others have harmed them.
Health system: A truer understanding of mercy and justice.

Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, director, department of adolescent medicine, Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Seconded by: M. Susan Jay, MD, professor of pediatrics, chief of adolescent medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
My wish for patients, hospital, and system: health, calm, and grace.

Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE, the IVF Center, Winter Park, Fla.
Patients: To be proactive in their health care and be their own advocates. Question when unclear and only consult credible resources.
Practice/hospital: Improve support of physicians and all health care providers to allow more input in their practice operations and growth.
Health system: Reduce interference of the “business of medicine” and ensure that the patient experience is the priority.

Charles P. Vega, MD, University of California, Irvine
Three minutes on a routine basis for everyone in health care to reflect on our blessings and the honor and gravity – as well as joy – that are integral to health care. Three minutes that will also help us to recognize our challenges and put them in the proper context. I know 3 minutes is not meeting any standard for reflective practice. But it’s 3 minutes more than I have right now.

Karen Breach Washington, MD, medical director of WellCare of North Carolina/Centene, Charlotte
Seconded by: Lillian M. Beard, MD, physician director, Children’s Pediatricians and Associates, Silver Spring, Md.
Patients: Access to affordable health care.
Hospital: Resources to care for patients (sufficient number of beds and a healthy staff).
Health system: Equity for all.

Andrew Wilner, MD, host of the podcast “The Art of Medicine with Dr. Andrew Wilner,” www.andrewwilner.com
Let’s put patients first! Too many extraneous considerations other than the patient’s best interest obstruct optimal patient care.

Here are just a few examples of patients coming last instead of first.

• If a patient needs to start a new medication in hospital, we shouldn’t have to wait until the patient is an outpatient because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If there’s a new medication that’s better than the old medication, we shouldn’t be forced to choose the old medication and provide inferior care because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If patients need to stay in hospital, we shouldn’t be pressured to discharge them because the hospital has decided that decreasing “length of stay” is its highest priority.

Dr. Francis Peabody said it best in 1927: “The secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.” How hard is that?

In 2023, why don’t we follow Dr. Peabody’s sage advice from nearly 100 years ago and see what happens?
 

James M. Wooten, PharmD, University of Missouri–Kansas City, University Health, Kansas City, Mo.
Patients: I want patients to understand and properly realize the advantage of vaccinations – not only for COVID-19 but also for influenza. There is so much misinformation that I spend a lot of time trying to convince patients to get vaccinated. Most patients don’t realize that through their lives, most of them have already been vaccinated for something just to be able to attend school. How the COVID-19 vaccine created so much stigma makes little sense to me. I also want patients to understand that COVID-19 vaccination and boosters do not always prevent infection but will many times prevent severe infection. I believe that better patient communication and education is the key and will always be the key to improving vaccination numbers. Not only communicating and educating patients on vaccination itself but also making patients realize that personal vaccination decisions may affect what happens to your neighbor. Allowing infection means that you may be more likely to infect someone else. As a society, we must take care of each other.
Health system: It will be interesting to see what happens when vaccines are no longer reimbursed by the federal government. Understanding which vaccines work best and are better tolerated will be key to choosing appropriate vaccine brands. Health care providers will need to be very selective regarding which vaccines are selected for formulary inclusion. Thorough meta-analysis studies must be done to provide more evaluable information to allow for appropriate selection. “Knowledge is power!” Appropriate knowledge will help distinguish which vaccines work best for various patient populations.

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