MDedge Pediatrics

Children who receive CPR with both rescue breathing and compressions from a bystander have greater odds of survival without serious brain damage than if they receive CPR with compressions only, according to a study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Specifically, a child has a 61% better chance of surviving with good neurologic outcomes if they receive compression-only CPR versus no bystander resuscitation, but that child is more than twice as likely to survive if he or she receives rescue breathing as well.

The study’s clinical implications are most important for bystander CPR training, lead author Maryam Y. Naim, MD, MSCE, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia, told this news organization.

“Many programs teach compression-only CPR to lay rescuers, and there should be a renewed emphasis on rescue breathing for the possibility a lay rescuer has to perform CPR on a child,” Dr. Naim said.

That said, if a bystander is unfamiliar with how to properly administer rescue breathing or has concerns about hygiene or infection on someone they don’t know, Dr. Naim advises doing compression-only CPR, especially if the child is older than age 1 year. “If a child is younger than a year of age please consider giving rescue breaths with chest compressions,” she added.

Dr. Naim and colleagues analyzed 13,060 pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrests from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival database, which includes data from 911 call centers, emergency medical services (EMS) providers, and receiving hospitals across 28 states. The data sample included all cases age 18 years or younger who experienced nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest between January 2013 and December 2019, excluding those with obvious signs of death or a “do not resuscitate” order.

“Because the etiology of cardiac arrest in children is difficult to determine, especially in cases that result in death, all nontraumatic cases were included regardless of presumed etiology, including respiratory, cardiac, drowning, electrocution, or other,” the authors wrote. The researchers defined neurologically favorable survival, the primary endpoint, as “a cerebral performance category score of 1 (no neurologic disability) or 2 (moderate disability)” at discharge. Neurologically unfavorable survival included a score of 3 (severe disability), 4 (coma or vegetative state), or death. 

Among the 10,429 cases ultimately analyzed after exclusions and missing data, 46.5% received bystander CPR. Slightly more than half of these (55.6%) received compression-only CPR while the other 45.3% received rescue-breathing CPR.

Dr. Naim was surprised that compression-only CPR was the most common form of CPR given to children with cardiac arrest because the current American Heart Association/International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation recommendations note rescue breathing as the preferred form in children.

That preference exists because respiratory failure occurs more often in children than in adults as a cause of cardiac arrest, explained Sandra Weiss, MD, an interventional cardiologist and the medical director of the cardiac intensive care unit at ChristianaCare’s Christiana Hospital in Newark, Del.

Because of that, “it’s not surprising that if you give respiratory resuscitation to a child who’s arresting from a respiratory cause that they’re going to do better than if you just do chest compressions,” said Dr. Weiss, who was not involved in the study.

The study found the most common presumed cause of arrest to be cardiac, occurring in 44.4% of cases, but it was closely followed by respiratory in nearly one-third of cases (32.8%).

Infants younger than age 1 year were the most common age group to have a cardiac arrest, making up more than all other ages combined. Most out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occurred in a home and were observed by someone when they happened. While rates of bystander CPR did not change during the study’s 6-year period, the incidence of compression-only CPR increased. Lay people without medical training provided the CPR in 93.6% of cases.

Only 8.6% of cardiac arrest cases resulted in neurologically favorable survival, a rate which remained steady throughout the study period. The rate increased with increasing age, at 4.6% of infants, 10.6% of children, and 16.5% of adolescents.

Those who received CPR with rescue breathing had more than double the odds of neurologically favorable survival than if they hadn’t received CPR at all (adjusted odds ratio, 2.16). Survival with a positive neurologic outcome was 1.6 times more likely with compression-only CPR than no CPR (aOR, 1.61). When researchers compared the two forms of CPR, inclusion of rescue breathing increased the child’s likelihood of survival without neurologic sequelae by 36% (aOR, 1.36).

Despite these findings, however, Dr. Weiss agrees with Dr. Naim that offering compression-only CPR is preferable to offering no CPR at all.

“All resuscitation is better than no resuscitation, regardless of whether it’s compression only or respiratory breathing,” Dr. Weiss said in an interview. “The average lay person is probably going to do the easiest thing, and survivability is going to be increased by doing anything rather than nothing.”

Dr. Weiss also noted that it’s easier to instruct people how to do chest compressions, especially, for example, during an emergency phone call with a dispatcher while waiting for EMS to arrive.

“It’s absolutely imperative for people to get the basics, and the basics are compressions,” she said. “That’s really what is the most vital component of all resuscitative efforts, regardless of whether it’s adult or pediatrics.”

Dr. Weiss also acknowledges that laypeople may feel particularly less comfortable administering rescue breaths to a child they don’t know in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even if the odds are low that the specific child experiencing a cardiac arrest is necessarily infectious, the AHA guidelines include the caveat that, “if there’s a concern for infection transmissibility, that compression only is acceptable,” Dr. Weiss said. “It’s a reality for our current state.”

The superiority of rescue-breathing CPR to compression-only CPR was true across all age groups, but compression-only CPR still resulted in better survival odds than no CPR at all for all age groups except infants, in whom only rescue breathing was associated with a statistically significant increased likelihood of neurologically favorable survival.

Protective factors for positive outcomes included being younger than age 1 year, the arrest being witnessed, and a having shockable rhythm. Risk factors reducing survival included being Black, being in a home, and cardiac arrests linked with automated external defibrillator use before EMS arrived.

The CARES program was previously funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and is now funded by the American Red Cross, the AHA, Stryker, and Emory University. Dr. Naim was further supported by Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the American Red Cross. The authors and Dr. Weiss disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children who receive CPR with both rescue breathing and compressions from a bystander have greater odds of survival without serious brain damage than if they receive CPR with compressions only, according to a study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Specifically, a child has a 61% better chance of surviving with good neurologic outcomes if they receive compression-only CPR versus no bystander resuscitation, but that child is more than twice as likely to survive if he or she receives rescue breathing as well.

The study’s clinical implications are most important for bystander CPR training, lead author Maryam Y. Naim, MD, MSCE, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia, told this news organization.

“Many programs teach compression-only CPR to lay rescuers, and there should be a renewed emphasis on rescue breathing for the possibility a lay rescuer has to perform CPR on a child,” Dr. Naim said.

That said, if a bystander is unfamiliar with how to properly administer rescue breathing or has concerns about hygiene or infection on someone they don’t know, Dr. Naim advises doing compression-only CPR, especially if the child is older than age 1 year. “If a child is younger than a year of age please consider giving rescue breaths with chest compressions,” she added.

Dr. Naim and colleagues analyzed 13,060 pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrests from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival database, which includes data from 911 call centers, emergency medical services (EMS) providers, and receiving hospitals across 28 states. The data sample included all cases age 18 years or younger who experienced nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest between January 2013 and December 2019, excluding those with obvious signs of death or a “do not resuscitate” order.

“Because the etiology of cardiac arrest in children is difficult to determine, especially in cases that result in death, all nontraumatic cases were included regardless of presumed etiology, including respiratory, cardiac, drowning, electrocution, or other,” the authors wrote. The researchers defined neurologically favorable survival, the primary endpoint, as “a cerebral performance category score of 1 (no neurologic disability) or 2 (moderate disability)” at discharge. Neurologically unfavorable survival included a score of 3 (severe disability), 4 (coma or vegetative state), or death. 

Among the 10,429 cases ultimately analyzed after exclusions and missing data, 46.5% received bystander CPR. Slightly more than half of these (55.6%) received compression-only CPR while the other 45.3% received rescue-breathing CPR.

Dr. Naim was surprised that compression-only CPR was the most common form of CPR given to children with cardiac arrest because the current American Heart Association/International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation recommendations note rescue breathing as the preferred form in children.

That preference exists because respiratory failure occurs more often in children than in adults as a cause of cardiac arrest, explained Sandra Weiss, MD, an interventional cardiologist and the medical director of the cardiac intensive care unit at ChristianaCare’s Christiana Hospital in Newark, Del.

Because of that, “it’s not surprising that if you give respiratory resuscitation to a child who’s arresting from a respiratory cause that they’re going to do better than if you just do chest compressions,” said Dr. Weiss, who was not involved in the study.

The study found the most common presumed cause of arrest to be cardiac, occurring in 44.4% of cases, but it was closely followed by respiratory in nearly one-third of cases (32.8%).

Infants younger than age 1 year were the most common age group to have a cardiac arrest, making up more than all other ages combined. Most out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occurred in a home and were observed by someone when they happened. While rates of bystander CPR did not change during the study’s 6-year period, the incidence of compression-only CPR increased. Lay people without medical training provided the CPR in 93.6% of cases.

Only 8.6% of cardiac arrest cases resulted in neurologically favorable survival, a rate which remained steady throughout the study period. The rate increased with increasing age, at 4.6% of infants, 10.6% of children, and 16.5% of adolescents.

Those who received CPR with rescue breathing had more than double the odds of neurologically favorable survival than if they hadn’t received CPR at all (adjusted odds ratio, 2.16). Survival with a positive neurologic outcome was 1.6 times more likely with compression-only CPR than no CPR (aOR, 1.61). When researchers compared the two forms of CPR, inclusion of rescue breathing increased the child’s likelihood of survival without neurologic sequelae by 36% (aOR, 1.36).

Despite these findings, however, Dr. Weiss agrees with Dr. Naim that offering compression-only CPR is preferable to offering no CPR at all.

“All resuscitation is better than no resuscitation, regardless of whether it’s compression only or respiratory breathing,” Dr. Weiss said in an interview. “The average lay person is probably going to do the easiest thing, and survivability is going to be increased by doing anything rather than nothing.”

Dr. Weiss also noted that it’s easier to instruct people how to do chest compressions, especially, for example, during an emergency phone call with a dispatcher while waiting for EMS to arrive.

“It’s absolutely imperative for people to get the basics, and the basics are compressions,” she said. “That’s really what is the most vital component of all resuscitative efforts, regardless of whether it’s adult or pediatrics.”

Dr. Weiss also acknowledges that laypeople may feel particularly less comfortable administering rescue breaths to a child they don’t know in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even if the odds are low that the specific child experiencing a cardiac arrest is necessarily infectious, the AHA guidelines include the caveat that, “if there’s a concern for infection transmissibility, that compression only is acceptable,” Dr. Weiss said. “It’s a reality for our current state.”

The superiority of rescue-breathing CPR to compression-only CPR was true across all age groups, but compression-only CPR still resulted in better survival odds than no CPR at all for all age groups except infants, in whom only rescue breathing was associated with a statistically significant increased likelihood of neurologically favorable survival.

Protective factors for positive outcomes included being younger than age 1 year, the arrest being witnessed, and a having shockable rhythm. Risk factors reducing survival included being Black, being in a home, and cardiac arrests linked with automated external defibrillator use before EMS arrived.

The CARES program was previously funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and is now funded by the American Red Cross, the AHA, Stryker, and Emory University. Dr. Naim was further supported by Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the American Red Cross. The authors and Dr. Weiss disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children who receive CPR with both rescue breathing and compressions from a bystander have greater odds of survival without serious brain damage than if they receive CPR with compressions only, according to a study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Specifically, a child has a 61% better chance of surviving with good neurologic outcomes if they receive compression-only CPR versus no bystander resuscitation, but that child is more than twice as likely to survive if he or she receives rescue breathing as well.

The study’s clinical implications are most important for bystander CPR training, lead author Maryam Y. Naim, MD, MSCE, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia, told this news organization.

“Many programs teach compression-only CPR to lay rescuers, and there should be a renewed emphasis on rescue breathing for the possibility a lay rescuer has to perform CPR on a child,” Dr. Naim said.

That said, if a bystander is unfamiliar with how to properly administer rescue breathing or has concerns about hygiene or infection on someone they don’t know, Dr. Naim advises doing compression-only CPR, especially if the child is older than age 1 year. “If a child is younger than a year of age please consider giving rescue breaths with chest compressions,” she added.

Dr. Naim and colleagues analyzed 13,060 pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrests from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival database, which includes data from 911 call centers, emergency medical services (EMS) providers, and receiving hospitals across 28 states. The data sample included all cases age 18 years or younger who experienced nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest between January 2013 and December 2019, excluding those with obvious signs of death or a “do not resuscitate” order.

“Because the etiology of cardiac arrest in children is difficult to determine, especially in cases that result in death, all nontraumatic cases were included regardless of presumed etiology, including respiratory, cardiac, drowning, electrocution, or other,” the authors wrote. The researchers defined neurologically favorable survival, the primary endpoint, as “a cerebral performance category score of 1 (no neurologic disability) or 2 (moderate disability)” at discharge. Neurologically unfavorable survival included a score of 3 (severe disability), 4 (coma or vegetative state), or death. 

Among the 10,429 cases ultimately analyzed after exclusions and missing data, 46.5% received bystander CPR. Slightly more than half of these (55.6%) received compression-only CPR while the other 45.3% received rescue-breathing CPR.

Dr. Naim was surprised that compression-only CPR was the most common form of CPR given to children with cardiac arrest because the current American Heart Association/International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation recommendations note rescue breathing as the preferred form in children.

That preference exists because respiratory failure occurs more often in children than in adults as a cause of cardiac arrest, explained Sandra Weiss, MD, an interventional cardiologist and the medical director of the cardiac intensive care unit at ChristianaCare’s Christiana Hospital in Newark, Del.

Because of that, “it’s not surprising that if you give respiratory resuscitation to a child who’s arresting from a respiratory cause that they’re going to do better than if you just do chest compressions,” said Dr. Weiss, who was not involved in the study.

The study found the most common presumed cause of arrest to be cardiac, occurring in 44.4% of cases, but it was closely followed by respiratory in nearly one-third of cases (32.8%).

Infants younger than age 1 year were the most common age group to have a cardiac arrest, making up more than all other ages combined. Most out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occurred in a home and were observed by someone when they happened. While rates of bystander CPR did not change during the study’s 6-year period, the incidence of compression-only CPR increased. Lay people without medical training provided the CPR in 93.6% of cases.

Only 8.6% of cardiac arrest cases resulted in neurologically favorable survival, a rate which remained steady throughout the study period. The rate increased with increasing age, at 4.6% of infants, 10.6% of children, and 16.5% of adolescents.

Those who received CPR with rescue breathing had more than double the odds of neurologically favorable survival than if they hadn’t received CPR at all (adjusted odds ratio, 2.16). Survival with a positive neurologic outcome was 1.6 times more likely with compression-only CPR than no CPR (aOR, 1.61). When researchers compared the two forms of CPR, inclusion of rescue breathing increased the child’s likelihood of survival without neurologic sequelae by 36% (aOR, 1.36).

Despite these findings, however, Dr. Weiss agrees with Dr. Naim that offering compression-only CPR is preferable to offering no CPR at all.

“All resuscitation is better than no resuscitation, regardless of whether it’s compression only or respiratory breathing,” Dr. Weiss said in an interview. “The average lay person is probably going to do the easiest thing, and survivability is going to be increased by doing anything rather than nothing.”

Dr. Weiss also noted that it’s easier to instruct people how to do chest compressions, especially, for example, during an emergency phone call with a dispatcher while waiting for EMS to arrive.

“It’s absolutely imperative for people to get the basics, and the basics are compressions,” she said. “That’s really what is the most vital component of all resuscitative efforts, regardless of whether it’s adult or pediatrics.”

Dr. Weiss also acknowledges that laypeople may feel particularly less comfortable administering rescue breaths to a child they don’t know in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even if the odds are low that the specific child experiencing a cardiac arrest is necessarily infectious, the AHA guidelines include the caveat that, “if there’s a concern for infection transmissibility, that compression only is acceptable,” Dr. Weiss said. “It’s a reality for our current state.”

The superiority of rescue-breathing CPR to compression-only CPR was true across all age groups, but compression-only CPR still resulted in better survival odds than no CPR at all for all age groups except infants, in whom only rescue breathing was associated with a statistically significant increased likelihood of neurologically favorable survival.

Protective factors for positive outcomes included being younger than age 1 year, the arrest being witnessed, and a having shockable rhythm. Risk factors reducing survival included being Black, being in a home, and cardiac arrests linked with automated external defibrillator use before EMS arrived.

The CARES program was previously funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and is now funded by the American Red Cross, the AHA, Stryker, and Emory University. Dr. Naim was further supported by Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the American Red Cross. The authors and Dr. Weiss disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergency preparedness in U.S. pediatric offices is variable and less than ideal, especially in smaller independent practices, a 15-month multicenter study has found.

Researchers led by Kamal Abulebda, MD, associate professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric critical care medicine at Indiana University and Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis, report that adherence to the 2007 policy statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics on emergency preparedness in pediatric primary care offices was suboptimal across 42 offices in 9 states. They suggest that academic and community partnerships use in-situ simulation exercises to address preparedness gaps and implement standard procedures for contacting emergency medical services.

The group’s findings were published online in Pediatrics. “These data can be used to guide the development of interventions to improve emergency preparedness and care delivery in pediatric offices, Dr. Abulebda and coauthors wrote, noting that theirs is the first multicenter study to directly measure preparedness and quality of care in pediatric offices.

According to the authors, the incidence of a child’s requiring emergent stabilization in an individual office ranges from weekly to monthly, with seizures and respiratory distress being the most common events.

The study was conducted from 2018 to 2020 by 48 national teams participating in in-situ simulated sessions in the ambulatory setting. Office teams, recruited from practices by members of regional academic medical centers, included two patients – a child with respiratory distress and a child with a seizure. Almost 40% were from Indiana.

The scenarios and checklists for the mock exercises were created by content experts in pediatric emergency medicine and critical care using evidence-based guidelines and best practices.

Previous research has relied on self-reported surveys rather than direct measurement to assess adherence to the AAP guidelines, the authors say. In-person surveys assessed adherence to AAP recommendations for emergency preparedness. In-person surveys were, however, used to gauge adherence to AAP recommendations for emergency preparedness.
 

Findings

The overall mean emergency preparedness score was 74.7% (standard deviation [SD] 12.9), with an unweighted percentage of adherence to checklists calculated for each case. By emergency type, the median asthma case performance score was 63.6% (interquartile range [IQR] 43.2-81.2), and the median seizure case score was 69.2% (IQR 46.2-80.8).

On the measure of essential equipment and supplies, the mean subscore (relating to availability of such items as oxygen sources, suction devices, and epinephrine, for example) was 82.2% (SD 15.1).

As for recommended policies and protocols (e.g., regular assessment of the office, maintenance of emergency equipment and medications) the mean subscore fell to 57.1% (SD 25.6).

In multivariable analyses, offices with a standardized procedure for contacting EMS had a higher rate of activating that service during the simulations.

Independent practices and smaller total staff size were associated with lower preparedness compared with larger groups: beta = –11.89, 95% confidence interval [CI], 19.33-4.45).

Higher annual patient volume and larger total staff size were slightly associated with higher scores (beta = .001, 95% CI, .00-001, P = .017; and beta = .51, 95% CI, .19-.83, P = .002, respectively).

Affiliation with an academic medical center and the presence of learners were not associated with higher scores. And in multivariable regression, a higher annual patient volume lost its significant association with greater preparedness.

So why the lag in preparedness despite the long-standing AAP recommendations? “It’s most likely due to the rare occurrence of these emergencies in the office setting, in addition to most offices’ dependence on EMS when they encounter pediatric emergencies in their setting,” Dr. Abulebda said in an interview. “A 2018 study published by Yuknis and associates demonstrated that the average time from EMS notification to arrival on scene was just 6 minutes.”

In other study findings, 82% of offices did not have an infant bag valve mask and would therefore need to wait for EMS to administer lifesaving ventilation. “This highlights the need to have this equipment available and maintain the skills necessary to care for patients in respiratory distress, the most common emergency encountered in the office setting,” Dr. Abulebda and associates wrote.

A cardiac arrest board is another example of a potentially lifesaving piece of equipment that was not available in the majority of offices, likely because of the rarity of this event in the office setting, but lack of this item may result in poor cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality before the arrival of EMS.

In an accompanying editorial, Jesse Hackell, MD, a pediatrician at Boston Children’s Health Physicians and New York Medical College in Pomona, N.Y., noted that data from 2 decades ago suggested that many pediatric offices saw multiple children requiring emergency intervention each week. More recent figures, however, indicate the situation has evolved, with fewer than 1% of current pediatric EMS transports originating from the office setting.

Dr. Hackell agrees that implementation of AAP recommendations has been far from universal and cites the cost of equipment and supplies as well as a lack of access to training and evaluation as significant barriers to implementation. “In addition, the infrequent occurrence of these emergencies makes maintenance of resuscitation skills even more difficult without frequent practice,” he wrote.

Further complicating the issue, preparedness needs vary with practice location, the response time of local EMS, and proximity to an emergency department. “Pediatric offices in more rural areas, which are farther from these services, will require more equipment and more skills to provide optimal emergency care to children living in these underresourced areas,” he wrote.

He called for equitable distribution of preparedness training, equipment, and staffing, with guidance designed to meet patient needs and ensure optimal outcomes. “In discussion of recommendations, one should consider the likely conditions requiring this response, availability of resources beyond the pediatric office, and ongoing training and support needed to maintain provider skills at the level needed for a successful response to any pediatric emergency,” Dr. Hackell wrote.

This study was supported by grants from Indiana University Health Values and the RBaby Foundation. One study coauthor is a board observer of a medical device company. No other authors disclosed financial relationships relevant to this work. Dr. Hackell has disclosed having no competing interests.

Emergency preparedness in U.S. pediatric offices is variable and less than ideal, especially in smaller independent practices, a 15-month multicenter study has found.

Researchers led by Kamal Abulebda, MD, associate professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric critical care medicine at Indiana University and Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis, report that adherence to the 2007 policy statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics on emergency preparedness in pediatric primary care offices was suboptimal across 42 offices in 9 states. They suggest that academic and community partnerships use in-situ simulation exercises to address preparedness gaps and implement standard procedures for contacting emergency medical services.

The group’s findings were published online in Pediatrics. “These data can be used to guide the development of interventions to improve emergency preparedness and care delivery in pediatric offices, Dr. Abulebda and coauthors wrote, noting that theirs is the first multicenter study to directly measure preparedness and quality of care in pediatric offices.

According to the authors, the incidence of a child’s requiring emergent stabilization in an individual office ranges from weekly to monthly, with seizures and respiratory distress being the most common events.

The study was conducted from 2018 to 2020 by 48 national teams participating in in-situ simulated sessions in the ambulatory setting. Office teams, recruited from practices by members of regional academic medical centers, included two patients – a child with respiratory distress and a child with a seizure. Almost 40% were from Indiana.

The scenarios and checklists for the mock exercises were created by content experts in pediatric emergency medicine and critical care using evidence-based guidelines and best practices.

Previous research has relied on self-reported surveys rather than direct measurement to assess adherence to the AAP guidelines, the authors say. In-person surveys assessed adherence to AAP recommendations for emergency preparedness. In-person surveys were, however, used to gauge adherence to AAP recommendations for emergency preparedness.
 

Findings

The overall mean emergency preparedness score was 74.7% (standard deviation [SD] 12.9), with an unweighted percentage of adherence to checklists calculated for each case. By emergency type, the median asthma case performance score was 63.6% (interquartile range [IQR] 43.2-81.2), and the median seizure case score was 69.2% (IQR 46.2-80.8).

On the measure of essential equipment and supplies, the mean subscore (relating to availability of such items as oxygen sources, suction devices, and epinephrine, for example) was 82.2% (SD 15.1).

As for recommended policies and protocols (e.g., regular assessment of the office, maintenance of emergency equipment and medications) the mean subscore fell to 57.1% (SD 25.6).

In multivariable analyses, offices with a standardized procedure for contacting EMS had a higher rate of activating that service during the simulations.

Independent practices and smaller total staff size were associated with lower preparedness compared with larger groups: beta = –11.89, 95% confidence interval [CI], 19.33-4.45).

Higher annual patient volume and larger total staff size were slightly associated with higher scores (beta = .001, 95% CI, .00-001, P = .017; and beta = .51, 95% CI, .19-.83, P = .002, respectively).

Affiliation with an academic medical center and the presence of learners were not associated with higher scores. And in multivariable regression, a higher annual patient volume lost its significant association with greater preparedness.

So why the lag in preparedness despite the long-standing AAP recommendations? “It’s most likely due to the rare occurrence of these emergencies in the office setting, in addition to most offices’ dependence on EMS when they encounter pediatric emergencies in their setting,” Dr. Abulebda said in an interview. “A 2018 study published by Yuknis and associates demonstrated that the average time from EMS notification to arrival on scene was just 6 minutes.”

In other study findings, 82% of offices did not have an infant bag valve mask and would therefore need to wait for EMS to administer lifesaving ventilation. “This highlights the need to have this equipment available and maintain the skills necessary to care for patients in respiratory distress, the most common emergency encountered in the office setting,” Dr. Abulebda and associates wrote.

A cardiac arrest board is another example of a potentially lifesaving piece of equipment that was not available in the majority of offices, likely because of the rarity of this event in the office setting, but lack of this item may result in poor cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality before the arrival of EMS.

In an accompanying editorial, Jesse Hackell, MD, a pediatrician at Boston Children’s Health Physicians and New York Medical College in Pomona, N.Y., noted that data from 2 decades ago suggested that many pediatric offices saw multiple children requiring emergency intervention each week. More recent figures, however, indicate the situation has evolved, with fewer than 1% of current pediatric EMS transports originating from the office setting.

Dr. Hackell agrees that implementation of AAP recommendations has been far from universal and cites the cost of equipment and supplies as well as a lack of access to training and evaluation as significant barriers to implementation. “In addition, the infrequent occurrence of these emergencies makes maintenance of resuscitation skills even more difficult without frequent practice,” he wrote.

Further complicating the issue, preparedness needs vary with practice location, the response time of local EMS, and proximity to an emergency department. “Pediatric offices in more rural areas, which are farther from these services, will require more equipment and more skills to provide optimal emergency care to children living in these underresourced areas,” he wrote.

He called for equitable distribution of preparedness training, equipment, and staffing, with guidance designed to meet patient needs and ensure optimal outcomes. “In discussion of recommendations, one should consider the likely conditions requiring this response, availability of resources beyond the pediatric office, and ongoing training and support needed to maintain provider skills at the level needed for a successful response to any pediatric emergency,” Dr. Hackell wrote.

This study was supported by grants from Indiana University Health Values and the RBaby Foundation. One study coauthor is a board observer of a medical device company. No other authors disclosed financial relationships relevant to this work. Dr. Hackell has disclosed having no competing interests.

Emergency preparedness in U.S. pediatric offices is variable and less than ideal, especially in smaller independent practices, a 15-month multicenter study has found.

Researchers led by Kamal Abulebda, MD, associate professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric critical care medicine at Indiana University and Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis, report that adherence to the 2007 policy statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics on emergency preparedness in pediatric primary care offices was suboptimal across 42 offices in 9 states. They suggest that academic and community partnerships use in-situ simulation exercises to address preparedness gaps and implement standard procedures for contacting emergency medical services.

The group’s findings were published online in Pediatrics. “These data can be used to guide the development of interventions to improve emergency preparedness and care delivery in pediatric offices, Dr. Abulebda and coauthors wrote, noting that theirs is the first multicenter study to directly measure preparedness and quality of care in pediatric offices.

According to the authors, the incidence of a child’s requiring emergent stabilization in an individual office ranges from weekly to monthly, with seizures and respiratory distress being the most common events.

The study was conducted from 2018 to 2020 by 48 national teams participating in in-situ simulated sessions in the ambulatory setting. Office teams, recruited from practices by members of regional academic medical centers, included two patients – a child with respiratory distress and a child with a seizure. Almost 40% were from Indiana.

The scenarios and checklists for the mock exercises were created by content experts in pediatric emergency medicine and critical care using evidence-based guidelines and best practices.

Previous research has relied on self-reported surveys rather than direct measurement to assess adherence to the AAP guidelines, the authors say. In-person surveys assessed adherence to AAP recommendations for emergency preparedness. In-person surveys were, however, used to gauge adherence to AAP recommendations for emergency preparedness.
 

Findings

The overall mean emergency preparedness score was 74.7% (standard deviation [SD] 12.9), with an unweighted percentage of adherence to checklists calculated for each case. By emergency type, the median asthma case performance score was 63.6% (interquartile range [IQR] 43.2-81.2), and the median seizure case score was 69.2% (IQR 46.2-80.8).

On the measure of essential equipment and supplies, the mean subscore (relating to availability of such items as oxygen sources, suction devices, and epinephrine, for example) was 82.2% (SD 15.1).

As for recommended policies and protocols (e.g., regular assessment of the office, maintenance of emergency equipment and medications) the mean subscore fell to 57.1% (SD 25.6).

In multivariable analyses, offices with a standardized procedure for contacting EMS had a higher rate of activating that service during the simulations.

Independent practices and smaller total staff size were associated with lower preparedness compared with larger groups: beta = –11.89, 95% confidence interval [CI], 19.33-4.45).

Higher annual patient volume and larger total staff size were slightly associated with higher scores (beta = .001, 95% CI, .00-001, P = .017; and beta = .51, 95% CI, .19-.83, P = .002, respectively).

Affiliation with an academic medical center and the presence of learners were not associated with higher scores. And in multivariable regression, a higher annual patient volume lost its significant association with greater preparedness.

So why the lag in preparedness despite the long-standing AAP recommendations? “It’s most likely due to the rare occurrence of these emergencies in the office setting, in addition to most offices’ dependence on EMS when they encounter pediatric emergencies in their setting,” Dr. Abulebda said in an interview. “A 2018 study published by Yuknis and associates demonstrated that the average time from EMS notification to arrival on scene was just 6 minutes.”

In other study findings, 82% of offices did not have an infant bag valve mask and would therefore need to wait for EMS to administer lifesaving ventilation. “This highlights the need to have this equipment available and maintain the skills necessary to care for patients in respiratory distress, the most common emergency encountered in the office setting,” Dr. Abulebda and associates wrote.

A cardiac arrest board is another example of a potentially lifesaving piece of equipment that was not available in the majority of offices, likely because of the rarity of this event in the office setting, but lack of this item may result in poor cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality before the arrival of EMS.

In an accompanying editorial, Jesse Hackell, MD, a pediatrician at Boston Children’s Health Physicians and New York Medical College in Pomona, N.Y., noted that data from 2 decades ago suggested that many pediatric offices saw multiple children requiring emergency intervention each week. More recent figures, however, indicate the situation has evolved, with fewer than 1% of current pediatric EMS transports originating from the office setting.

Dr. Hackell agrees that implementation of AAP recommendations has been far from universal and cites the cost of equipment and supplies as well as a lack of access to training and evaluation as significant barriers to implementation. “In addition, the infrequent occurrence of these emergencies makes maintenance of resuscitation skills even more difficult without frequent practice,” he wrote.

Further complicating the issue, preparedness needs vary with practice location, the response time of local EMS, and proximity to an emergency department. “Pediatric offices in more rural areas, which are farther from these services, will require more equipment and more skills to provide optimal emergency care to children living in these underresourced areas,” he wrote.

He called for equitable distribution of preparedness training, equipment, and staffing, with guidance designed to meet patient needs and ensure optimal outcomes. “In discussion of recommendations, one should consider the likely conditions requiring this response, availability of resources beyond the pediatric office, and ongoing training and support needed to maintain provider skills at the level needed for a successful response to any pediatric emergency,” Dr. Hackell wrote.

This study was supported by grants from Indiana University Health Values and the RBaby Foundation. One study coauthor is a board observer of a medical device company. No other authors disclosed financial relationships relevant to this work. Dr. Hackell has disclosed having no competing interests.

A new joint consensus statement by four major diabetes organizations aims to standardize the terminology, definition, and assessment to the phenomenon of diabetes “remission.”

The statement was jointly issued by the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, and Diabetes UK.

The 12-member international writing panel proposed use of the term “remission,” as opposed to others such as “reversal,” “resolution,” or “cure,” to describe the phenomenon of prolonged normoglycemia without the use of glucose-lowering medication in a person previously diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.

“Diabetes remission may be occurring more often due to advances in treatment,” writing group member Amy Rothberg, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a statement.

The group defined “remission” – whether attained via lifestyle, bariatric surgery, or other means – as an A1c < 6.5% (< 48 mmol/mol) at least 3 months after cessation of glucose-lowering pharmacotherapy. The panel also suggested monitoring individuals experiencing diabetes remission and raised questions that need further attention and study.

But it’s not a guideline, panel chair Matthew C. Riddle, MD, said in an interview. Rather, the “main purpose of the statement was to provide definitions, terminology, cut-points, and timing recommendations to allow data collection that will eventually lead to clinical guidelines,” he said.

A great deal of epidemiological research is conducted by analyzing data from medical records, he noted. “If clinicians are more consistent in entering data into the records and in doing measurements, it will be a better database.”
 

Remission reality: Advice needed for deprescribing, talking to patients

“Increasingly our treatments are getting glucose levels into the normal range, and in many cases, even after withdrawal of drug therapy. That’s not an anomaly or a fiction, it’s reality. Clinicians need to know how to talk to their patients about it,” noted Dr. Riddle, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and clinical nutrition at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

There is a need for data on the effects of deprescribing once normoglycemia is achieved, he said. “It really goes a long way to have strong epidemiological and interventional evidence. That’s what we need here, and that’s what the group is really hoping for.”

The statement recommends the following:

• The term “remission” should be used to describe a sustained metabolic improvement in type 2 diabetes to near normal levels. The panel agreed the word strikes the best balance, given that insulin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction may still be present despite normoglycemia. “Diabetes doesn’t get cured. The underlying abnormalities are still there. Remission is defined by glucose,” Dr. Riddle said. The panel also decided to do away with ADA’s former terms “partial,” “complete,” and “prolonged” remission because they are ambiguous and unhelpful. 
• Remission should be defined as a return to an A1c of < 6.5% (< 48 mmol/mol) – the threshold used to diagnose diabetes – spontaneously or following an intervention and that persists for at least 3 months in the absence of usual glucose-lowering medication.
• When A1c may be unreliable, such as conditions involving variant hemoglobin or erythrocyte survival alterations, acceptable alternatives are a fasting blood glucose < 126 mg/dL (< 7.0 mmol/L) or an estimated A1c < 6.5% calculated from continuous glucose monitoring data.
• A1c testing to document a remission should be performed just prior to an intervention and no sooner than 3 months after initiation of the intervention and withdrawal of any glucose-lowering medication.
• Subsequent ongoing A1c testing should be done at least yearly thereafter, along with routine monitoring for diabetes-related complications, including retinal screening, renal function assessment, foot exams, and cardiovascular risk factor testing. “At present, there is no long-term evidence indicating that any of the usually recommended assessments for complications can safely be discontinued,” the authors wrote.
• Research based on the terminology and definitions in the present statement is needed to determine the frequency, duration, and effects on short- and long-term medical outcomes of type 2 diabetes remissions using available interventions.

Dr. Riddle said in an interview: “We thought that the clinical community needed to understand where this issue stands right now. The feasibility of a remission is greater than it used to be.

“We’re going to see more patients who have what we can now call a remission according to a standardized definition. In the future, there are likely to be guidelines regarding the kind of patients and the kind of tactics appropriate for seeking a remission,” he said.

The statement was simultaneously published online in each of the organizations’ respective journals: Diabetes Care, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Diabetologia, and Diabetic Medicine.

Dr. Riddle has reported receiving research grant support through Oregon Health & Science University from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca and honoraria for consulting from Adocia, Intercept, and Theracos.

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

A new joint consensus statement by four major diabetes organizations aims to standardize the terminology, definition, and assessment to the phenomenon of diabetes “remission.”

The statement was jointly issued by the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, and Diabetes UK.

The 12-member international writing panel proposed use of the term “remission,” as opposed to others such as “reversal,” “resolution,” or “cure,” to describe the phenomenon of prolonged normoglycemia without the use of glucose-lowering medication in a person previously diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.

“Diabetes remission may be occurring more often due to advances in treatment,” writing group member Amy Rothberg, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a statement.

The group defined “remission” – whether attained via lifestyle, bariatric surgery, or other means – as an A1c < 6.5% (< 48 mmol/mol) at least 3 months after cessation of glucose-lowering pharmacotherapy. The panel also suggested monitoring individuals experiencing diabetes remission and raised questions that need further attention and study.

But it’s not a guideline, panel chair Matthew C. Riddle, MD, said in an interview. Rather, the “main purpose of the statement was to provide definitions, terminology, cut-points, and timing recommendations to allow data collection that will eventually lead to clinical guidelines,” he said.

A great deal of epidemiological research is conducted by analyzing data from medical records, he noted. “If clinicians are more consistent in entering data into the records and in doing measurements, it will be a better database.”
 

Remission reality: Advice needed for deprescribing, talking to patients

“Increasingly our treatments are getting glucose levels into the normal range, and in many cases, even after withdrawal of drug therapy. That’s not an anomaly or a fiction, it’s reality. Clinicians need to know how to talk to their patients about it,” noted Dr. Riddle, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and clinical nutrition at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

There is a need for data on the effects of deprescribing once normoglycemia is achieved, he said. “It really goes a long way to have strong epidemiological and interventional evidence. That’s what we need here, and that’s what the group is really hoping for.”

The statement recommends the following:

• The term “remission” should be used to describe a sustained metabolic improvement in type 2 diabetes to near normal levels. The panel agreed the word strikes the best balance, given that insulin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction may still be present despite normoglycemia. “Diabetes doesn’t get cured. The underlying abnormalities are still there. Remission is defined by glucose,” Dr. Riddle said. The panel also decided to do away with ADA’s former terms “partial,” “complete,” and “prolonged” remission because they are ambiguous and unhelpful. 
• Remission should be defined as a return to an A1c of < 6.5% (< 48 mmol/mol) – the threshold used to diagnose diabetes – spontaneously or following an intervention and that persists for at least 3 months in the absence of usual glucose-lowering medication.
• When A1c may be unreliable, such as conditions involving variant hemoglobin or erythrocyte survival alterations, acceptable alternatives are a fasting blood glucose < 126 mg/dL (< 7.0 mmol/L) or an estimated A1c < 6.5% calculated from continuous glucose monitoring data.
• A1c testing to document a remission should be performed just prior to an intervention and no sooner than 3 months after initiation of the intervention and withdrawal of any glucose-lowering medication.
• Subsequent ongoing A1c testing should be done at least yearly thereafter, along with routine monitoring for diabetes-related complications, including retinal screening, renal function assessment, foot exams, and cardiovascular risk factor testing. “At present, there is no long-term evidence indicating that any of the usually recommended assessments for complications can safely be discontinued,” the authors wrote.
• Research based on the terminology and definitions in the present statement is needed to determine the frequency, duration, and effects on short- and long-term medical outcomes of type 2 diabetes remissions using available interventions.

Dr. Riddle said in an interview: “We thought that the clinical community needed to understand where this issue stands right now. The feasibility of a remission is greater than it used to be.

“We’re going to see more patients who have what we can now call a remission according to a standardized definition. In the future, there are likely to be guidelines regarding the kind of patients and the kind of tactics appropriate for seeking a remission,” he said.

The statement was simultaneously published online in each of the organizations’ respective journals: Diabetes Care, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Diabetologia, and Diabetic Medicine.

Dr. Riddle has reported receiving research grant support through Oregon Health & Science University from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca and honoraria for consulting from Adocia, Intercept, and Theracos.

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

A new joint consensus statement by four major diabetes organizations aims to standardize the terminology, definition, and assessment to the phenomenon of diabetes “remission.”

The statement was jointly issued by the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, and Diabetes UK.

The 12-member international writing panel proposed use of the term “remission,” as opposed to others such as “reversal,” “resolution,” or “cure,” to describe the phenomenon of prolonged normoglycemia without the use of glucose-lowering medication in a person previously diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.

“Diabetes remission may be occurring more often due to advances in treatment,” writing group member Amy Rothberg, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a statement.

The group defined “remission” – whether attained via lifestyle, bariatric surgery, or other means – as an A1c < 6.5% (< 48 mmol/mol) at least 3 months after cessation of glucose-lowering pharmacotherapy. The panel also suggested monitoring individuals experiencing diabetes remission and raised questions that need further attention and study.

But it’s not a guideline, panel chair Matthew C. Riddle, MD, said in an interview. Rather, the “main purpose of the statement was to provide definitions, terminology, cut-points, and timing recommendations to allow data collection that will eventually lead to clinical guidelines,” he said.

A great deal of epidemiological research is conducted by analyzing data from medical records, he noted. “If clinicians are more consistent in entering data into the records and in doing measurements, it will be a better database.”
 

Remission reality: Advice needed for deprescribing, talking to patients

“Increasingly our treatments are getting glucose levels into the normal range, and in many cases, even after withdrawal of drug therapy. That’s not an anomaly or a fiction, it’s reality. Clinicians need to know how to talk to their patients about it,” noted Dr. Riddle, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and clinical nutrition at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

There is a need for data on the effects of deprescribing once normoglycemia is achieved, he said. “It really goes a long way to have strong epidemiological and interventional evidence. That’s what we need here, and that’s what the group is really hoping for.”

The statement recommends the following:

• The term “remission” should be used to describe a sustained metabolic improvement in type 2 diabetes to near normal levels. The panel agreed the word strikes the best balance, given that insulin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction may still be present despite normoglycemia. “Diabetes doesn’t get cured. The underlying abnormalities are still there. Remission is defined by glucose,” Dr. Riddle said. The panel also decided to do away with ADA’s former terms “partial,” “complete,” and “prolonged” remission because they are ambiguous and unhelpful. 
• Remission should be defined as a return to an A1c of < 6.5% (< 48 mmol/mol) – the threshold used to diagnose diabetes – spontaneously or following an intervention and that persists for at least 3 months in the absence of usual glucose-lowering medication.
• When A1c may be unreliable, such as conditions involving variant hemoglobin or erythrocyte survival alterations, acceptable alternatives are a fasting blood glucose < 126 mg/dL (< 7.0 mmol/L) or an estimated A1c < 6.5% calculated from continuous glucose monitoring data.
• A1c testing to document a remission should be performed just prior to an intervention and no sooner than 3 months after initiation of the intervention and withdrawal of any glucose-lowering medication.
• Subsequent ongoing A1c testing should be done at least yearly thereafter, along with routine monitoring for diabetes-related complications, including retinal screening, renal function assessment, foot exams, and cardiovascular risk factor testing. “At present, there is no long-term evidence indicating that any of the usually recommended assessments for complications can safely be discontinued,” the authors wrote.
• Research based on the terminology and definitions in the present statement is needed to determine the frequency, duration, and effects on short- and long-term medical outcomes of type 2 diabetes remissions using available interventions.

Dr. Riddle said in an interview: “We thought that the clinical community needed to understand where this issue stands right now. The feasibility of a remission is greater than it used to be.

“We’re going to see more patients who have what we can now call a remission according to a standardized definition. In the future, there are likely to be guidelines regarding the kind of patients and the kind of tactics appropriate for seeking a remission,” he said.

The statement was simultaneously published online in each of the organizations’ respective journals: Diabetes Care, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Diabetologia, and Diabetic Medicine.

Dr. Riddle has reported receiving research grant support through Oregon Health & Science University from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca and honoraria for consulting from Adocia, Intercept, and Theracos.

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

Emerging evidence suggests that autoimmunity plays a role in postinfectious myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and that targeting autoantibodies could be a promising treatment approach.

The same may also apply to many cases of “long COVID,” in which many of the symptoms overlap with those of ME/CFS, Carmen Scheibenbogen, MD, professor of clinical immunology and director of the Institute for Medical Immunology, Charité University Medicine, Berlin, said during the annual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.

Several groups, including Dr. Scheibenbogen’s, have reported finding autoantibodies against neurotransmitter receptor antigens in people with ME/CFS. And, in a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine the day that Dr. Scheibenbogen spoke at the meeting, her team reported significant correlations between autoantibodies to vasoregulative G-protein–coupled receptors and symptom severity, autonomic dysfunction, and disability among 116 patients with infection-triggered ME/CFS who were diagnosed using the symptom-based 2003 Canadian consensus criteria.

People with ME/CFS are also more likely to have genetic risk factors associated with autoimmunity and personal and/or family histories of autoimmune conditions. And, clinical trials have demonstrated early success with various immunomodulatory treatments in subsets of people with ME/CFS, including endoxan, rituximab, and immunoadsorption.

“We have evidence that ME/CFS is an autoantibody-mediated disease, and we have evidence that autoantibody targeting is effective in this disease. So far ... we have few and underfinanced clinical studies, but the good news is we have promising emerging treatment options,” Dr. Scheibenbogen said.

Asked to comment, ME/CFS expert Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said: “There is already strong evidence that there are autoantibodies in ME/CFS. Dr. Scheibenbogen’s work is the latest and employs the latest technology. ... I would bet that autoantibodies to neural targets are likely to cause some of the symptoms of ME/CFS and some of the symptoms of long COVID.”

However, he cautioned, “that has not been proven, and even if it were proven you would have to demonstrate that treatments based on that theory worked.”

Dr. Komaroff said he views autoimmunity as a likely component of the ME/CFS spectrum, but not the only one. “My current view of this illness is that there’s a final common pathway in the brain that leads to the symptoms of the illness. But that final common pathway can be triggered by a variety of different things, one of which could be autoantibodies while another could be infection or inflammation in the brain.”
 

Emerging evidence points to autoimmunity

Dr. Scheibenbogen summarized the work published in this area over the past few years by her group and others.

In a comparison of ME/CFS patients with 201 healthy controls, significant associations were seen with two specific autoimmunity-related risk alleles only in the ME/CFS patients who reported acute onset of disease with an infection but not in those with ME/CFS without infection-triggered onset or the controls. Both genes play roles in regulating B- and T-cell activation.

Another recent study found associations with ME/CFS and major histocompatibility complex class II molecules, a typical feature of autoimmune diseases, in a comparison between 426 adult Norwegian ME/CFS patients who were diagnosed with the Canadian consensus criteria and 4,511 healthy, ethnically matched controls.

In a 2020 paper, Dr. Scheibenbogen and pharmacologist Klaus Wirth presented a “unifying hypothesis” of ME/CFS pathophysiology based on the finding of elevations in autoantibodies against beta₂-adrenergic receptors and muscarinic acetylcholine receptors in some individuals with the condition. Since both of those receptors are important vasodilators, their functional disturbance would be expected to cause vasoconstriction and hypoxemia, which would explain many of the symptoms of ME/CFS. This mechanism would align with other findings of muscular and cerebral hypoperfusion that correlate with fatigue, particularly post exertion, as well as metabolic changes that are in line with the concepts of hypoxemia and ischemia.

Further evidence for vascular dysfunction in ME/CFS came from her group’s study finding evidence of peripheral endothelial dysfunction that was associated with symptom severity in 35 adult patients. “Vasoconstriction, hypovolemia, and release of vasoactive and algesic mediators is probably a key pathomechanism of the disease,” Dr. Scheibenbogen said.
 

Treatments: Will targeting autoantibodies work?

In the second part of her talk, Dr. Scheibenbogen summarized clinical trials of the following treatment approaches that involve targeting autoantibodies as a way to alleviate ME/CFS symptoms:

Rituximab: Work on infusions of the B-cell depleting agent has been conducted by Norwegian researchers beginning in 2011 with a small randomized trial and an open-label, phase 2 study in 2015, both showing clinical responses in ME/CFS. However, a subsequent phase 3, randomized clinical trial of 151 patients, again diagnosed using the Canadian criteria, was negative.

There are several possible explanations for this, Dr. Scheibenbogen noted. For one, the maintenance dose had to be reduced because of a lack of financial support. “This was probably critical. The lower dose was insufficient to adequately deplete B cells.” Also, there may have been a strong placebo response in the control group since they were being given better care than they normally would receive during the trial. “I think probably nobody will again do a rituximab trial. This was very disappointing for all of us. But, we still have other opportunities to follow this path,” she said.

Dr. Komaroff agreed. “I don’t think the failure of one drug that hits malignant B cells is proof against the autoimmune hypothesis per se. I think the evidence is that rituximab doesn’t work, but that doesn’t invalidate the autoimmunity hypothesis.”

Cyclophosphamide: The same Norwegian group also showed positive findings in an open-label, phase 2 trial of the immune-modifying drug cyclophosphamide in 22 of 40 patients. Interestingly, HLA risk alleles were much more common in responders than nonresponders, Dr. Scheibenbogen noted.

Immunoadsorption: This technique, similar to dialysis, involves separating out the blood plasma by centrifugation and removing IgG autoantibodies by a binding column, then returning the plasma back to the patient. It is used, primarily in Europe, to treat severe autoimmune diseases including dilative cardiomyopathy and refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Dr. Scheibenbogen’s group has conducted two studies of immunoadsorption in ME/CFS. In one, a 5-day procedure led to rapid symptom improvement in 7 of 10 patients, with sustained improvement in 3 patients after 2 years. Autoantibodies decreased rapidly in 9 of the 10 patients. In a follow-up study of five of the responders 2 years later, retreatment with a modified immunoadsorption protocol led to rapid and sustained improvement in four. Further study has been on hold because of the pandemic.

Next-gen IgG-targeting therapies: Another approach that could offer promise for ME/CFS involves therapies that block the Fc receptors of IgG. Several are in phase 1-3 trials for autoimmune conditions. One candidate drug, the Fc fragment efgartigimod, is currently in phase 3 trials for several conditions, including generalized myasthenia gravis, primary immune thrombocytopenia, and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Phase 3 trials are planned for the monoclonal antibody rozanolixizumab in those same conditions.

Newer-generation monoclonal antibodies targeting CD19 or CD20 that show benefit in various autoimmune conditions are another possibility for ME/CFS. These include ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), approved in the United States for treating relapsing and progressive multiple sclerosis and in trials for SLE; obinutuzumab (Gazyva), approved for treating lymphoma and also in development for SLE; and ublituximab, in phase 3 trials for multiple sclerosis.

“Most of them are more effective than rituximab,” Dr. Scheibenbogen noted, adding that “currently the data look quite promising. They are effective in different autoimmune diseases and they are quite well tolerated. There’s great hope now with COVID-19 that we can convince some companies to do such trials in ME/CFS as well.”

Dr. Scheibenbogen’s institution, the Charité Fatigue Center, has a patent for beta₂-adrenergic receptor antibodies for diagnosing ME/CFS under her name together with Celltrend. Dr. Komaroff has received personal fees from Serimmune.

Emerging evidence suggests that autoimmunity plays a role in postinfectious myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and that targeting autoantibodies could be a promising treatment approach.

The same may also apply to many cases of “long COVID,” in which many of the symptoms overlap with those of ME/CFS, Carmen Scheibenbogen, MD, professor of clinical immunology and director of the Institute for Medical Immunology, Charité University Medicine, Berlin, said during the annual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.

Several groups, including Dr. Scheibenbogen’s, have reported finding autoantibodies against neurotransmitter receptor antigens in people with ME/CFS. And, in a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine the day that Dr. Scheibenbogen spoke at the meeting, her team reported significant correlations between autoantibodies to vasoregulative G-protein–coupled receptors and symptom severity, autonomic dysfunction, and disability among 116 patients with infection-triggered ME/CFS who were diagnosed using the symptom-based 2003 Canadian consensus criteria.

People with ME/CFS are also more likely to have genetic risk factors associated with autoimmunity and personal and/or family histories of autoimmune conditions. And, clinical trials have demonstrated early success with various immunomodulatory treatments in subsets of people with ME/CFS, including endoxan, rituximab, and immunoadsorption.

“We have evidence that ME/CFS is an autoantibody-mediated disease, and we have evidence that autoantibody targeting is effective in this disease. So far ... we have few and underfinanced clinical studies, but the good news is we have promising emerging treatment options,” Dr. Scheibenbogen said.

Asked to comment, ME/CFS expert Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said: “There is already strong evidence that there are autoantibodies in ME/CFS. Dr. Scheibenbogen’s work is the latest and employs the latest technology. ... I would bet that autoantibodies to neural targets are likely to cause some of the symptoms of ME/CFS and some of the symptoms of long COVID.”

However, he cautioned, “that has not been proven, and even if it were proven you would have to demonstrate that treatments based on that theory worked.”

Dr. Komaroff said he views autoimmunity as a likely component of the ME/CFS spectrum, but not the only one. “My current view of this illness is that there’s a final common pathway in the brain that leads to the symptoms of the illness. But that final common pathway can be triggered by a variety of different things, one of which could be autoantibodies while another could be infection or inflammation in the brain.”
 

Emerging evidence points to autoimmunity

Dr. Scheibenbogen summarized the work published in this area over the past few years by her group and others.

In a comparison of ME/CFS patients with 201 healthy controls, significant associations were seen with two specific autoimmunity-related risk alleles only in the ME/CFS patients who reported acute onset of disease with an infection but not in those with ME/CFS without infection-triggered onset or the controls. Both genes play roles in regulating B- and T-cell activation.

Another recent study found associations with ME/CFS and major histocompatibility complex class II molecules, a typical feature of autoimmune diseases, in a comparison between 426 adult Norwegian ME/CFS patients who were diagnosed with the Canadian consensus criteria and 4,511 healthy, ethnically matched controls.

In a 2020 paper, Dr. Scheibenbogen and pharmacologist Klaus Wirth presented a “unifying hypothesis” of ME/CFS pathophysiology based on the finding of elevations in autoantibodies against beta₂-adrenergic receptors and muscarinic acetylcholine receptors in some individuals with the condition. Since both of those receptors are important vasodilators, their functional disturbance would be expected to cause vasoconstriction and hypoxemia, which would explain many of the symptoms of ME/CFS. This mechanism would align with other findings of muscular and cerebral hypoperfusion that correlate with fatigue, particularly post exertion, as well as metabolic changes that are in line with the concepts of hypoxemia and ischemia.

Further evidence for vascular dysfunction in ME/CFS came from her group’s study finding evidence of peripheral endothelial dysfunction that was associated with symptom severity in 35 adult patients. “Vasoconstriction, hypovolemia, and release of vasoactive and algesic mediators is probably a key pathomechanism of the disease,” Dr. Scheibenbogen said.
 

Treatments: Will targeting autoantibodies work?

In the second part of her talk, Dr. Scheibenbogen summarized clinical trials of the following treatment approaches that involve targeting autoantibodies as a way to alleviate ME/CFS symptoms:

Rituximab: Work on infusions of the B-cell depleting agent has been conducted by Norwegian researchers beginning in 2011 with a small randomized trial and an open-label, phase 2 study in 2015, both showing clinical responses in ME/CFS. However, a subsequent phase 3, randomized clinical trial of 151 patients, again diagnosed using the Canadian criteria, was negative.

There are several possible explanations for this, Dr. Scheibenbogen noted. For one, the maintenance dose had to be reduced because of a lack of financial support. “This was probably critical. The lower dose was insufficient to adequately deplete B cells.” Also, there may have been a strong placebo response in the control group since they were being given better care than they normally would receive during the trial. “I think probably nobody will again do a rituximab trial. This was very disappointing for all of us. But, we still have other opportunities to follow this path,” she said.

Dr. Komaroff agreed. “I don’t think the failure of one drug that hits malignant B cells is proof against the autoimmune hypothesis per se. I think the evidence is that rituximab doesn’t work, but that doesn’t invalidate the autoimmunity hypothesis.”

Cyclophosphamide: The same Norwegian group also showed positive findings in an open-label, phase 2 trial of the immune-modifying drug cyclophosphamide in 22 of 40 patients. Interestingly, HLA risk alleles were much more common in responders than nonresponders, Dr. Scheibenbogen noted.

Immunoadsorption: This technique, similar to dialysis, involves separating out the blood plasma by centrifugation and removing IgG autoantibodies by a binding column, then returning the plasma back to the patient. It is used, primarily in Europe, to treat severe autoimmune diseases including dilative cardiomyopathy and refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Dr. Scheibenbogen’s group has conducted two studies of immunoadsorption in ME/CFS. In one, a 5-day procedure led to rapid symptom improvement in 7 of 10 patients, with sustained improvement in 3 patients after 2 years. Autoantibodies decreased rapidly in 9 of the 10 patients. In a follow-up study of five of the responders 2 years later, retreatment with a modified immunoadsorption protocol led to rapid and sustained improvement in four. Further study has been on hold because of the pandemic.

Next-gen IgG-targeting therapies: Another approach that could offer promise for ME/CFS involves therapies that block the Fc receptors of IgG. Several are in phase 1-3 trials for autoimmune conditions. One candidate drug, the Fc fragment efgartigimod, is currently in phase 3 trials for several conditions, including generalized myasthenia gravis, primary immune thrombocytopenia, and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Phase 3 trials are planned for the monoclonal antibody rozanolixizumab in those same conditions.

Newer-generation monoclonal antibodies targeting CD19 or CD20 that show benefit in various autoimmune conditions are another possibility for ME/CFS. These include ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), approved in the United States for treating relapsing and progressive multiple sclerosis and in trials for SLE; obinutuzumab (Gazyva), approved for treating lymphoma and also in development for SLE; and ublituximab, in phase 3 trials for multiple sclerosis.

“Most of them are more effective than rituximab,” Dr. Scheibenbogen noted, adding that “currently the data look quite promising. They are effective in different autoimmune diseases and they are quite well tolerated. There’s great hope now with COVID-19 that we can convince some companies to do such trials in ME/CFS as well.”

Dr. Scheibenbogen’s institution, the Charité Fatigue Center, has a patent for beta₂-adrenergic receptor antibodies for diagnosing ME/CFS under her name together with Celltrend. Dr. Komaroff has received personal fees from Serimmune.

Emerging evidence suggests that autoimmunity plays a role in postinfectious myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and that targeting autoantibodies could be a promising treatment approach.

The same may also apply to many cases of “long COVID,” in which many of the symptoms overlap with those of ME/CFS, Carmen Scheibenbogen, MD, professor of clinical immunology and director of the Institute for Medical Immunology, Charité University Medicine, Berlin, said during the annual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.

Several groups, including Dr. Scheibenbogen’s, have reported finding autoantibodies against neurotransmitter receptor antigens in people with ME/CFS. And, in a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine the day that Dr. Scheibenbogen spoke at the meeting, her team reported significant correlations between autoantibodies to vasoregulative G-protein–coupled receptors and symptom severity, autonomic dysfunction, and disability among 116 patients with infection-triggered ME/CFS who were diagnosed using the symptom-based 2003 Canadian consensus criteria.

People with ME/CFS are also more likely to have genetic risk factors associated with autoimmunity and personal and/or family histories of autoimmune conditions. And, clinical trials have demonstrated early success with various immunomodulatory treatments in subsets of people with ME/CFS, including endoxan, rituximab, and immunoadsorption.

“We have evidence that ME/CFS is an autoantibody-mediated disease, and we have evidence that autoantibody targeting is effective in this disease. So far ... we have few and underfinanced clinical studies, but the good news is we have promising emerging treatment options,” Dr. Scheibenbogen said.

Asked to comment, ME/CFS expert Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said: “There is already strong evidence that there are autoantibodies in ME/CFS. Dr. Scheibenbogen’s work is the latest and employs the latest technology. ... I would bet that autoantibodies to neural targets are likely to cause some of the symptoms of ME/CFS and some of the symptoms of long COVID.”

However, he cautioned, “that has not been proven, and even if it were proven you would have to demonstrate that treatments based on that theory worked.”

Dr. Komaroff said he views autoimmunity as a likely component of the ME/CFS spectrum, but not the only one. “My current view of this illness is that there’s a final common pathway in the brain that leads to the symptoms of the illness. But that final common pathway can be triggered by a variety of different things, one of which could be autoantibodies while another could be infection or inflammation in the brain.”
 

Emerging evidence points to autoimmunity

Dr. Scheibenbogen summarized the work published in this area over the past few years by her group and others.

In a comparison of ME/CFS patients with 201 healthy controls, significant associations were seen with two specific autoimmunity-related risk alleles only in the ME/CFS patients who reported acute onset of disease with an infection but not in those with ME/CFS without infection-triggered onset or the controls. Both genes play roles in regulating B- and T-cell activation.

Another recent study found associations with ME/CFS and major histocompatibility complex class II molecules, a typical feature of autoimmune diseases, in a comparison between 426 adult Norwegian ME/CFS patients who were diagnosed with the Canadian consensus criteria and 4,511 healthy, ethnically matched controls.

In a 2020 paper, Dr. Scheibenbogen and pharmacologist Klaus Wirth presented a “unifying hypothesis” of ME/CFS pathophysiology based on the finding of elevations in autoantibodies against beta₂-adrenergic receptors and muscarinic acetylcholine receptors in some individuals with the condition. Since both of those receptors are important vasodilators, their functional disturbance would be expected to cause vasoconstriction and hypoxemia, which would explain many of the symptoms of ME/CFS. This mechanism would align with other findings of muscular and cerebral hypoperfusion that correlate with fatigue, particularly post exertion, as well as metabolic changes that are in line with the concepts of hypoxemia and ischemia.

Further evidence for vascular dysfunction in ME/CFS came from her group’s study finding evidence of peripheral endothelial dysfunction that was associated with symptom severity in 35 adult patients. “Vasoconstriction, hypovolemia, and release of vasoactive and algesic mediators is probably a key pathomechanism of the disease,” Dr. Scheibenbogen said.
 

Treatments: Will targeting autoantibodies work?

In the second part of her talk, Dr. Scheibenbogen summarized clinical trials of the following treatment approaches that involve targeting autoantibodies as a way to alleviate ME/CFS symptoms:

Rituximab: Work on infusions of the B-cell depleting agent has been conducted by Norwegian researchers beginning in 2011 with a small randomized trial and an open-label, phase 2 study in 2015, both showing clinical responses in ME/CFS. However, a subsequent phase 3, randomized clinical trial of 151 patients, again diagnosed using the Canadian criteria, was negative.

There are several possible explanations for this, Dr. Scheibenbogen noted. For one, the maintenance dose had to be reduced because of a lack of financial support. “This was probably critical. The lower dose was insufficient to adequately deplete B cells.” Also, there may have been a strong placebo response in the control group since they were being given better care than they normally would receive during the trial. “I think probably nobody will again do a rituximab trial. This was very disappointing for all of us. But, we still have other opportunities to follow this path,” she said.

Dr. Komaroff agreed. “I don’t think the failure of one drug that hits malignant B cells is proof against the autoimmune hypothesis per se. I think the evidence is that rituximab doesn’t work, but that doesn’t invalidate the autoimmunity hypothesis.”

Cyclophosphamide: The same Norwegian group also showed positive findings in an open-label, phase 2 trial of the immune-modifying drug cyclophosphamide in 22 of 40 patients. Interestingly, HLA risk alleles were much more common in responders than nonresponders, Dr. Scheibenbogen noted.

Immunoadsorption: This technique, similar to dialysis, involves separating out the blood plasma by centrifugation and removing IgG autoantibodies by a binding column, then returning the plasma back to the patient. It is used, primarily in Europe, to treat severe autoimmune diseases including dilative cardiomyopathy and refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Dr. Scheibenbogen’s group has conducted two studies of immunoadsorption in ME/CFS. In one, a 5-day procedure led to rapid symptom improvement in 7 of 10 patients, with sustained improvement in 3 patients after 2 years. Autoantibodies decreased rapidly in 9 of the 10 patients. In a follow-up study of five of the responders 2 years later, retreatment with a modified immunoadsorption protocol led to rapid and sustained improvement in four. Further study has been on hold because of the pandemic.

Next-gen IgG-targeting therapies: Another approach that could offer promise for ME/CFS involves therapies that block the Fc receptors of IgG. Several are in phase 1-3 trials for autoimmune conditions. One candidate drug, the Fc fragment efgartigimod, is currently in phase 3 trials for several conditions, including generalized myasthenia gravis, primary immune thrombocytopenia, and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Phase 3 trials are planned for the monoclonal antibody rozanolixizumab in those same conditions.

Newer-generation monoclonal antibodies targeting CD19 or CD20 that show benefit in various autoimmune conditions are another possibility for ME/CFS. These include ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), approved in the United States for treating relapsing and progressive multiple sclerosis and in trials for SLE; obinutuzumab (Gazyva), approved for treating lymphoma and also in development for SLE; and ublituximab, in phase 3 trials for multiple sclerosis.

“Most of them are more effective than rituximab,” Dr. Scheibenbogen noted, adding that “currently the data look quite promising. They are effective in different autoimmune diseases and they are quite well tolerated. There’s great hope now with COVID-19 that we can convince some companies to do such trials in ME/CFS as well.”

Dr. Scheibenbogen’s institution, the Charité Fatigue Center, has a patent for beta₂-adrenergic receptor antibodies for diagnosing ME/CFS under her name together with Celltrend. Dr. Komaroff has received personal fees from Serimmune.

Weekly pediatric cases of COVID-19 exceeded 200,000 for just the second time during the pandemic, while new vaccinations in children continued to decline.

There were almost 204,000 new cases reported in children during the week of Aug. 20-26, the highest 1-week total since the peak of 211,000 in mid-January. The weekly count has now increased for 9 consecutive weeks, during which time it has risen by over 2,300%, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID-19 report. Total cases in children number almost 4.8 million since the pandemic started.

Vaccinations in children are following a different trend. Vaccine initiation has dropped 3 weeks in a row for both of the eligible age groups: First doses administered were down by 29% among 12- to 15-year-olds over that span and by 32% in 16- to 17-year-olds, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Since vaccination for children aged 12-15 years started in May, 49% had received at least one dose, and just over 36% were fully vaccinated as of Aug. 30. Among children aged 16-17 years, who have been eligible since December, 57.5% had gotten at least one dose of the vaccine and 46% have completed the two-dose regimen. The total number of children with at least one dose, including those under age 12 who are involved in clinical trials, was about 12 million, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
 

Hospitalizations are higher than ever

The recent rise in new child cases has been accompanied by an unprecedented increase in hospitalizations. The daily rate in children aged 0-17 years, which did not surpass 0.30 new admissions per 100,000 population during the worst of the winter surge, had risen to 0.45 per 100,000 by Aug. 26. Since July 4, when the new-admission rate was at its low point of 0.07 per 100,000, hospitalizations in children have jumped by 543%, based on data reported to the CDC by 5,251 hospitals.

A total of 52,245 children were admitted with confirmed COVID-19 from Aug. 1, 2020, when the CDC dataset begins, to Aug. 28, 2021. Those children represent 1.9% of all COVID admissions (2.7 million) in the United States over that period, the CDC said.

Total COVID-related deaths in children are up to 425 in the 48 jurisdictions (45 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam) that provide mortality data by age, the AAP and the CHA said.

Record-high numbers for the previous 2 reporting weeks – 23 deaths during Aug. 20-26 and 24 deaths during Aug. 13-19, when the previous weekly high was 16 – at least partially reflect the recent addition of South Carolina and New Mexico to the AAP/CHA database, as the two states just started reporting age-related data.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Weekly pediatric cases of COVID-19 exceeded 200,000 for just the second time during the pandemic, while new vaccinations in children continued to decline.

There were almost 204,000 new cases reported in children during the week of Aug. 20-26, the highest 1-week total since the peak of 211,000 in mid-January. The weekly count has now increased for 9 consecutive weeks, during which time it has risen by over 2,300%, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID-19 report. Total cases in children number almost 4.8 million since the pandemic started.

Vaccinations in children are following a different trend. Vaccine initiation has dropped 3 weeks in a row for both of the eligible age groups: First doses administered were down by 29% among 12- to 15-year-olds over that span and by 32% in 16- to 17-year-olds, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Since vaccination for children aged 12-15 years started in May, 49% had received at least one dose, and just over 36% were fully vaccinated as of Aug. 30. Among children aged 16-17 years, who have been eligible since December, 57.5% had gotten at least one dose of the vaccine and 46% have completed the two-dose regimen. The total number of children with at least one dose, including those under age 12 who are involved in clinical trials, was about 12 million, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
 

Hospitalizations are higher than ever

The recent rise in new child cases has been accompanied by an unprecedented increase in hospitalizations. The daily rate in children aged 0-17 years, which did not surpass 0.30 new admissions per 100,000 population during the worst of the winter surge, had risen to 0.45 per 100,000 by Aug. 26. Since July 4, when the new-admission rate was at its low point of 0.07 per 100,000, hospitalizations in children have jumped by 543%, based on data reported to the CDC by 5,251 hospitals.

A total of 52,245 children were admitted with confirmed COVID-19 from Aug. 1, 2020, when the CDC dataset begins, to Aug. 28, 2021. Those children represent 1.9% of all COVID admissions (2.7 million) in the United States over that period, the CDC said.

Total COVID-related deaths in children are up to 425 in the 48 jurisdictions (45 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam) that provide mortality data by age, the AAP and the CHA said.

Record-high numbers for the previous 2 reporting weeks – 23 deaths during Aug. 20-26 and 24 deaths during Aug. 13-19, when the previous weekly high was 16 – at least partially reflect the recent addition of South Carolina and New Mexico to the AAP/CHA database, as the two states just started reporting age-related data.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Weekly pediatric cases of COVID-19 exceeded 200,000 for just the second time during the pandemic, while new vaccinations in children continued to decline.

There were almost 204,000 new cases reported in children during the week of Aug. 20-26, the highest 1-week total since the peak of 211,000 in mid-January. The weekly count has now increased for 9 consecutive weeks, during which time it has risen by over 2,300%, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID-19 report. Total cases in children number almost 4.8 million since the pandemic started.

Vaccinations in children are following a different trend. Vaccine initiation has dropped 3 weeks in a row for both of the eligible age groups: First doses administered were down by 29% among 12- to 15-year-olds over that span and by 32% in 16- to 17-year-olds, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Since vaccination for children aged 12-15 years started in May, 49% had received at least one dose, and just over 36% were fully vaccinated as of Aug. 30. Among children aged 16-17 years, who have been eligible since December, 57.5% had gotten at least one dose of the vaccine and 46% have completed the two-dose regimen. The total number of children with at least one dose, including those under age 12 who are involved in clinical trials, was about 12 million, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
 

Hospitalizations are higher than ever

The recent rise in new child cases has been accompanied by an unprecedented increase in hospitalizations. The daily rate in children aged 0-17 years, which did not surpass 0.30 new admissions per 100,000 population during the worst of the winter surge, had risen to 0.45 per 100,000 by Aug. 26. Since July 4, when the new-admission rate was at its low point of 0.07 per 100,000, hospitalizations in children have jumped by 543%, based on data reported to the CDC by 5,251 hospitals.

A total of 52,245 children were admitted with confirmed COVID-19 from Aug. 1, 2020, when the CDC dataset begins, to Aug. 28, 2021. Those children represent 1.9% of all COVID admissions (2.7 million) in the United States over that period, the CDC said.

Total COVID-related deaths in children are up to 425 in the 48 jurisdictions (45 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam) that provide mortality data by age, the AAP and the CHA said.

Record-high numbers for the previous 2 reporting weeks – 23 deaths during Aug. 20-26 and 24 deaths during Aug. 13-19, when the previous weekly high was 16 – at least partially reflect the recent addition of South Carolina and New Mexico to the AAP/CHA database, as the two states just started reporting age-related data.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Treatment of pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has evolved in recent years, with more attention given to some of the neuropsychiatric underpinnings of the condition and how they can affect treatment response.

At the Focus on Neuropsychiatry 2021 meeting, Jeffrey Strawn, MD, outlined some of the neuropsychiatry affecting disease and potential mechanisms to help control obsessions and behaviors, and how they may fit with some therapeutic regimens.

Dr. Strawn discussed the psychological construct of cognitive control, which can provide patients an “out” from the cycle of obsession/fear/worry and compulsion/avoidance. In the face of distress, compulsion and avoidance lead to relief, which reinforces the obsession/fear/worry; this in turn leads to more distress.

“We have an escape door for this circuit” in the form of cognitive control, said Dr. Strawn, who is an associate professor of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Cognitive control is linked to insight, which can in turn increase adaptive behaviors that help the patient resist the compulsion. Patients won’t eliminate distress, but they can be helped to make it more tolerable. Therapists can then help them move toward goal-directed thoughts and behaviors. Cognitive control is associated with several neural networks, but Dr. Strawn focused on two: the frontoparietal network, associated with top-down regulation; and the cingular-opercular network. Both of these are engaged during cognitive control processes, and play a role inhibitory control and error monitoring.

Dr. Strawn discussed a recent study that explored the neurofunctional basis of treatment. It compared the effects of a stress management therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in children and adults with OCD at 6 and 12 weeks. The study found similar symptom reductions in both adults and adolescents in both intervention groups.

Before initiating treatment, the researchers conducted functional MRI scans of participants while conducting an incentive flanker task, which reveals brain activity in response to cognitive control and reward processing.

A larger therapeutic response was found in the CBT group among patients who had a larger pretreatment activation within the right temporal lobe and rostral anterior cingulate cortex during cognitive control, as well as those with more activation within the medial prefrontal, orbitofrontal, lateral prefrontal, and amygdala regions during reward processing. On the other hand, within the stress management therapy group, treatment responses were better among those who had lower pretreatment activation among overlapping regions.

“There was a difference in terms of the neurofunctional predictors of treatment response. One of the key regions is the medial prefrontal cortex as well as the rostral anterior cingulate,” said Dr. Strawn, at the meeting presented by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

On the neuropharmacology side, numerous medications have been approved for OCD. Dr. Strawn highlighted some studies to illustrate general OCD treatment concepts. That included the 2004 Pediatric OCD Treatment Study, which was one of the only trials to compare placebo with an SSRI, CBT, and the combination of SSRI and CBT. It showed the best results with combination therapy, and the difference appeared early in the treatment course.

That study had aggressive dosing, which led to some issues with sertraline tolerability. Dr. Strawn showed results of a study at his institution which showed that the drug levels of pediatric patients treated with sertraline depended on CYP2C19 metabolism, which affects overall exposure and peak dose concentration. In pediatric populations, some SSRIs clear more slowly and can have high peak concentrations. SSRIs have more side effects than serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors in both anxiety disorders and OCD. A key difference between the two is that SSRI treatment is associated with greater frequency of activation, which is difficult to define, but includes restlessness and agitation and insomnia in the beginning stages of treatment.

SSRIs also lead to improvement early in the course of treatment, which was shown in a meta-analysis of nine trials. However, the same study showed that clomipramine is associated with a faster and greater magnitude of improvement, compared with SSRIs, even when the latter are dosed aggressively.

Clomipramine is a potent inhibitor of both serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake. It is recommended to monitor clomipramine levels in pediatric OCD patients, and Dr. Strawn suggested that monitoring should include both the parent drug and its primary metabolite, norclomipramine. At a given dose, there can be a great deal of variation in drug level. The clomipramine/norclomipramine ratio can provide information about the patient’s metabolic state, as well as drug adherence.

Dr. Strawn noted that peak levels occur around 1-3 hours after the dose, “and we really do want at least a 12-hour trough level.” EKGs should be performed at baseline and after any titration of clomipramine dose.

He also discussed pediatric OCD patients with OCD and tics. About one-third of Tourette syndrome patients experience OCD at some point. Tics often improve, whereas OCD more often persists. Tics that co-occur with OCD are associated with a lesser response to SSRI treatment, but not CBT treatment. Similarly, patients with hoarding tendencies are about one-third less likely to respond to SSRIs, CBT, or combination therapy.

Dr. Strawn discussed the concept of accommodation, in which family members cope with a patient’s behavior by altering routines to minimize distress and impairment. This may take the form of facilitating rituals, providing reassurance about a patient’s fears, acquiescing to demands, reducing the child’s day-to-day responsibilities, or helping the child complete tasks. Such actions are well intentioned, but they undermine cognitive control, negatively reinforce symptom engagement, and are associated with functional impairment. Reassurance is the most important behavior, occurring in more than half of patients, and it’s measurable. Parental involvement with rituals is also a concern. “This is associated with higher levels of child OCD severity, as well as parental psychopathology, and lower family cohesion. So oftentimes, there’s a real need to incorporate a family component for the therapeutic aspect of OCD treatment in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Strawn.

New developments in neurobiology and neuropsychology have changed the view of exposure. The old model emphasized the child’s fear rating as an index of corrective learning. The idea was that habituation would decrease anxiety and distress from future exposures. The new model revolves around inhibitory learning theory, which focuses on the variability of distress and aims to increase tolerance of distress. Another goal is to develop new, non-threat associations.

Finally, Dr. Strawn pointed out predictors of poor outcomes in pediatric OCD, including factors such as compulsion severity, oppositional behavior, frequent handwashing, functional impairment, lack of insight, externalizing symptoms, and possibly hoarding. Problematic family characteristics include higher levels of accommodation, parental anxiety, low family cohesion, and high levels of conflict. “The last three really represent a very concerning triad of family behaviors that may necessitate specific family work in order to facilitate the recovery of the pediatric patient,” Dr. Strawn said.

During the question-and-answer session after the talk, Dr. Strawn was asked whether there might be an inflammatory component to OCD, and whether pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcus (PANDAS) might be a prodromal condition. He noted that some studies have shown a relationship, but results have been mixed, with lots of heterogeneity within the studied populations. To be suspicious that a patient had OCD resulting from PANDAS would require a high threshold, including an acute onset of symptoms. “This is a situation also where I would tend to involve consultation with some other specialties, including neurology. And obviously there would be follow-up in terms of the general workup,” he said.

Dr. Strawn has received research funding from Allergan, Otsuka, and Myriad Genetics. He has consulted for Myriad Genetics, and is a speaker for CMEology and the Neuroscience Education Institute.

Treatment of pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has evolved in recent years, with more attention given to some of the neuropsychiatric underpinnings of the condition and how they can affect treatment response.

At the Focus on Neuropsychiatry 2021 meeting, Jeffrey Strawn, MD, outlined some of the neuropsychiatry affecting disease and potential mechanisms to help control obsessions and behaviors, and how they may fit with some therapeutic regimens.

Dr. Strawn discussed the psychological construct of cognitive control, which can provide patients an “out” from the cycle of obsession/fear/worry and compulsion/avoidance. In the face of distress, compulsion and avoidance lead to relief, which reinforces the obsession/fear/worry; this in turn leads to more distress.

“We have an escape door for this circuit” in the form of cognitive control, said Dr. Strawn, who is an associate professor of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Cognitive control is linked to insight, which can in turn increase adaptive behaviors that help the patient resist the compulsion. Patients won’t eliminate distress, but they can be helped to make it more tolerable. Therapists can then help them move toward goal-directed thoughts and behaviors. Cognitive control is associated with several neural networks, but Dr. Strawn focused on two: the frontoparietal network, associated with top-down regulation; and the cingular-opercular network. Both of these are engaged during cognitive control processes, and play a role inhibitory control and error monitoring.

Dr. Strawn discussed a recent study that explored the neurofunctional basis of treatment. It compared the effects of a stress management therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in children and adults with OCD at 6 and 12 weeks. The study found similar symptom reductions in both adults and adolescents in both intervention groups.

Before initiating treatment, the researchers conducted functional MRI scans of participants while conducting an incentive flanker task, which reveals brain activity in response to cognitive control and reward processing.

A larger therapeutic response was found in the CBT group among patients who had a larger pretreatment activation within the right temporal lobe and rostral anterior cingulate cortex during cognitive control, as well as those with more activation within the medial prefrontal, orbitofrontal, lateral prefrontal, and amygdala regions during reward processing. On the other hand, within the stress management therapy group, treatment responses were better among those who had lower pretreatment activation among overlapping regions.

“There was a difference in terms of the neurofunctional predictors of treatment response. One of the key regions is the medial prefrontal cortex as well as the rostral anterior cingulate,” said Dr. Strawn, at the meeting presented by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

On the neuropharmacology side, numerous medications have been approved for OCD. Dr. Strawn highlighted some studies to illustrate general OCD treatment concepts. That included the 2004 Pediatric OCD Treatment Study, which was one of the only trials to compare placebo with an SSRI, CBT, and the combination of SSRI and CBT. It showed the best results with combination therapy, and the difference appeared early in the treatment course.

That study had aggressive dosing, which led to some issues with sertraline tolerability. Dr. Strawn showed results of a study at his institution which showed that the drug levels of pediatric patients treated with sertraline depended on CYP2C19 metabolism, which affects overall exposure and peak dose concentration. In pediatric populations, some SSRIs clear more slowly and can have high peak concentrations. SSRIs have more side effects than serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors in both anxiety disorders and OCD. A key difference between the two is that SSRI treatment is associated with greater frequency of activation, which is difficult to define, but includes restlessness and agitation and insomnia in the beginning stages of treatment.

SSRIs also lead to improvement early in the course of treatment, which was shown in a meta-analysis of nine trials. However, the same study showed that clomipramine is associated with a faster and greater magnitude of improvement, compared with SSRIs, even when the latter are dosed aggressively.

Clomipramine is a potent inhibitor of both serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake. It is recommended to monitor clomipramine levels in pediatric OCD patients, and Dr. Strawn suggested that monitoring should include both the parent drug and its primary metabolite, norclomipramine. At a given dose, there can be a great deal of variation in drug level. The clomipramine/norclomipramine ratio can provide information about the patient’s metabolic state, as well as drug adherence.

Dr. Strawn noted that peak levels occur around 1-3 hours after the dose, “and we really do want at least a 12-hour trough level.” EKGs should be performed at baseline and after any titration of clomipramine dose.

He also discussed pediatric OCD patients with OCD and tics. About one-third of Tourette syndrome patients experience OCD at some point. Tics often improve, whereas OCD more often persists. Tics that co-occur with OCD are associated with a lesser response to SSRI treatment, but not CBT treatment. Similarly, patients with hoarding tendencies are about one-third less likely to respond to SSRIs, CBT, or combination therapy.

Dr. Strawn discussed the concept of accommodation, in which family members cope with a patient’s behavior by altering routines to minimize distress and impairment. This may take the form of facilitating rituals, providing reassurance about a patient’s fears, acquiescing to demands, reducing the child’s day-to-day responsibilities, or helping the child complete tasks. Such actions are well intentioned, but they undermine cognitive control, negatively reinforce symptom engagement, and are associated with functional impairment. Reassurance is the most important behavior, occurring in more than half of patients, and it’s measurable. Parental involvement with rituals is also a concern. “This is associated with higher levels of child OCD severity, as well as parental psychopathology, and lower family cohesion. So oftentimes, there’s a real need to incorporate a family component for the therapeutic aspect of OCD treatment in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Strawn.

New developments in neurobiology and neuropsychology have changed the view of exposure. The old model emphasized the child’s fear rating as an index of corrective learning. The idea was that habituation would decrease anxiety and distress from future exposures. The new model revolves around inhibitory learning theory, which focuses on the variability of distress and aims to increase tolerance of distress. Another goal is to develop new, non-threat associations.

Finally, Dr. Strawn pointed out predictors of poor outcomes in pediatric OCD, including factors such as compulsion severity, oppositional behavior, frequent handwashing, functional impairment, lack of insight, externalizing symptoms, and possibly hoarding. Problematic family characteristics include higher levels of accommodation, parental anxiety, low family cohesion, and high levels of conflict. “The last three really represent a very concerning triad of family behaviors that may necessitate specific family work in order to facilitate the recovery of the pediatric patient,” Dr. Strawn said.

During the question-and-answer session after the talk, Dr. Strawn was asked whether there might be an inflammatory component to OCD, and whether pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcus (PANDAS) might be a prodromal condition. He noted that some studies have shown a relationship, but results have been mixed, with lots of heterogeneity within the studied populations. To be suspicious that a patient had OCD resulting from PANDAS would require a high threshold, including an acute onset of symptoms. “This is a situation also where I would tend to involve consultation with some other specialties, including neurology. And obviously there would be follow-up in terms of the general workup,” he said.

Dr. Strawn has received research funding from Allergan, Otsuka, and Myriad Genetics. He has consulted for Myriad Genetics, and is a speaker for CMEology and the Neuroscience Education Institute.

Treatment of pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has evolved in recent years, with more attention given to some of the neuropsychiatric underpinnings of the condition and how they can affect treatment response.

At the Focus on Neuropsychiatry 2021 meeting, Jeffrey Strawn, MD, outlined some of the neuropsychiatry affecting disease and potential mechanisms to help control obsessions and behaviors, and how they may fit with some therapeutic regimens.

Dr. Strawn discussed the psychological construct of cognitive control, which can provide patients an “out” from the cycle of obsession/fear/worry and compulsion/avoidance. In the face of distress, compulsion and avoidance lead to relief, which reinforces the obsession/fear/worry; this in turn leads to more distress.

“We have an escape door for this circuit” in the form of cognitive control, said Dr. Strawn, who is an associate professor of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Cognitive control is linked to insight, which can in turn increase adaptive behaviors that help the patient resist the compulsion. Patients won’t eliminate distress, but they can be helped to make it more tolerable. Therapists can then help them move toward goal-directed thoughts and behaviors. Cognitive control is associated with several neural networks, but Dr. Strawn focused on two: the frontoparietal network, associated with top-down regulation; and the cingular-opercular network. Both of these are engaged during cognitive control processes, and play a role inhibitory control and error monitoring.

Dr. Strawn discussed a recent study that explored the neurofunctional basis of treatment. It compared the effects of a stress management therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in children and adults with OCD at 6 and 12 weeks. The study found similar symptom reductions in both adults and adolescents in both intervention groups.

Before initiating treatment, the researchers conducted functional MRI scans of participants while conducting an incentive flanker task, which reveals brain activity in response to cognitive control and reward processing.

A larger therapeutic response was found in the CBT group among patients who had a larger pretreatment activation within the right temporal lobe and rostral anterior cingulate cortex during cognitive control, as well as those with more activation within the medial prefrontal, orbitofrontal, lateral prefrontal, and amygdala regions during reward processing. On the other hand, within the stress management therapy group, treatment responses were better among those who had lower pretreatment activation among overlapping regions.

“There was a difference in terms of the neurofunctional predictors of treatment response. One of the key regions is the medial prefrontal cortex as well as the rostral anterior cingulate,” said Dr. Strawn, at the meeting presented by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

On the neuropharmacology side, numerous medications have been approved for OCD. Dr. Strawn highlighted some studies to illustrate general OCD treatment concepts. That included the 2004 Pediatric OCD Treatment Study, which was one of the only trials to compare placebo with an SSRI, CBT, and the combination of SSRI and CBT. It showed the best results with combination therapy, and the difference appeared early in the treatment course.

That study had aggressive dosing, which led to some issues with sertraline tolerability. Dr. Strawn showed results of a study at his institution which showed that the drug levels of pediatric patients treated with sertraline depended on CYP2C19 metabolism, which affects overall exposure and peak dose concentration. In pediatric populations, some SSRIs clear more slowly and can have high peak concentrations. SSRIs have more side effects than serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors in both anxiety disorders and OCD. A key difference between the two is that SSRI treatment is associated with greater frequency of activation, which is difficult to define, but includes restlessness and agitation and insomnia in the beginning stages of treatment.

SSRIs also lead to improvement early in the course of treatment, which was shown in a meta-analysis of nine trials. However, the same study showed that clomipramine is associated with a faster and greater magnitude of improvement, compared with SSRIs, even when the latter are dosed aggressively.

Clomipramine is a potent inhibitor of both serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake. It is recommended to monitor clomipramine levels in pediatric OCD patients, and Dr. Strawn suggested that monitoring should include both the parent drug and its primary metabolite, norclomipramine. At a given dose, there can be a great deal of variation in drug level. The clomipramine/norclomipramine ratio can provide information about the patient’s metabolic state, as well as drug adherence.

Dr. Strawn noted that peak levels occur around 1-3 hours after the dose, “and we really do want at least a 12-hour trough level.” EKGs should be performed at baseline and after any titration of clomipramine dose.

He also discussed pediatric OCD patients with OCD and tics. About one-third of Tourette syndrome patients experience OCD at some point. Tics often improve, whereas OCD more often persists. Tics that co-occur with OCD are associated with a lesser response to SSRI treatment, but not CBT treatment. Similarly, patients with hoarding tendencies are about one-third less likely to respond to SSRIs, CBT, or combination therapy.

Dr. Strawn discussed the concept of accommodation, in which family members cope with a patient’s behavior by altering routines to minimize distress and impairment. This may take the form of facilitating rituals, providing reassurance about a patient’s fears, acquiescing to demands, reducing the child’s day-to-day responsibilities, or helping the child complete tasks. Such actions are well intentioned, but they undermine cognitive control, negatively reinforce symptom engagement, and are associated with functional impairment. Reassurance is the most important behavior, occurring in more than half of patients, and it’s measurable. Parental involvement with rituals is also a concern. “This is associated with higher levels of child OCD severity, as well as parental psychopathology, and lower family cohesion. So oftentimes, there’s a real need to incorporate a family component for the therapeutic aspect of OCD treatment in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Strawn.

New developments in neurobiology and neuropsychology have changed the view of exposure. The old model emphasized the child’s fear rating as an index of corrective learning. The idea was that habituation would decrease anxiety and distress from future exposures. The new model revolves around inhibitory learning theory, which focuses on the variability of distress and aims to increase tolerance of distress. Another goal is to develop new, non-threat associations.

Finally, Dr. Strawn pointed out predictors of poor outcomes in pediatric OCD, including factors such as compulsion severity, oppositional behavior, frequent handwashing, functional impairment, lack of insight, externalizing symptoms, and possibly hoarding. Problematic family characteristics include higher levels of accommodation, parental anxiety, low family cohesion, and high levels of conflict. “The last three really represent a very concerning triad of family behaviors that may necessitate specific family work in order to facilitate the recovery of the pediatric patient,” Dr. Strawn said.

During the question-and-answer session after the talk, Dr. Strawn was asked whether there might be an inflammatory component to OCD, and whether pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcus (PANDAS) might be a prodromal condition. He noted that some studies have shown a relationship, but results have been mixed, with lots of heterogeneity within the studied populations. To be suspicious that a patient had OCD resulting from PANDAS would require a high threshold, including an acute onset of symptoms. “This is a situation also where I would tend to involve consultation with some other specialties, including neurology. And obviously there would be follow-up in terms of the general workup,” he said.

Dr. Strawn has received research funding from Allergan, Otsuka, and Myriad Genetics. He has consulted for Myriad Genetics, and is a speaker for CMEology and the Neuroscience Education Institute.

Most children who develop multisystemic inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) after infection with SARS-CoV-2 recover relatively quickly and without significant sequelae, according to a research letter published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

“The results of this research letter offer some reassurance as has been the case with other longitudinal reports, that children with MIS-C largely recover from the illness with minimal sequelae,” said Kanwal M. Farooqi, MD, a pediatric cardiologist from Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.

“This is despite the severity of the initial clinical presentation, which can be quite significant with signs of systemic inflammation, hypotension, and need for ICU-level care,” continued Dr. Farooqi, who was not involved in the study.

Given that little is known about the medium- and long-term effects of MIS-C following infection with COVID-19, Patrick Davies, MRCPCH, Nottingham (England) University Hospitals NHS Trust, and colleagues reviewed data from one of the earliest multicenter national cohorts of children in the United Kingdom. The cohort included children admitted to the hospital prior to May 10, 2020, and the analysis was based on data from 68 of 76 (89%) patients of the initial surviving cohort. Information regarding critical care readmissions and outpatient follow-up visits up to April 1, 2021 (1-year post admission), was included in the analysis.

Overall laboratory results appeared normal for most children at 50 days post admission, including neutrophils, platelets, ferritin, creatinine, and alanine transaminase. Just 3% (2/65 test results) of children showed elevated levels of C-reactive protein, 3% (2/59 test results) for D-dimer, and 2% (1/60 test results) for troponin.

Based on echocardiographic data, 14 of the 19 patients who presented with aneurysms had resolution. Nine of 10 patients who presented with “bright” coronary arteries had resolution and only one progressed to having unresolved coronary artery aneurysms with the latest follow-up at 86 days post admission. All of the 38 patients who presented with impaired function without aneurysm had recovered by day 74.

Of the six patients with ongoing echocardiographic abnormalities, all had aneurysmal changes noted on echocardiograms performed between 86 and 336 days post admission. The authors were surprised to find that troponin levels in this group were lower when compared with others in the cohort (0.06 ng/mL [interquartile range, 0.02-0.418 ng/mL] vs. 0.157 ng/mL [0.033-0.81 ng/mL]; P = .02).

These six patients ranged in age from 0 to 13 years (median age, 8.75 years); five were Afro Caribbean boys and one was a White girl.

The researchers acknowledged that, despite coming from a nationwide data set, the interpretation of this data is limited given the small size of the cohort and the lack of standardized follow-up protocol available at the time.

When asked how this data might inform follow-up guidance for children post COVID infection, Dr. Farooqi said, “although it appears from the data that we have seen in the last few months that the patients recover relatively quickly from MIS-C, I believe it is reasonable to evaluate them at 6-month intervals for the second year until we have more information regarding longer-term outcomes.”

The study authors and Dr. Farooqi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most children who develop multisystemic inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) after infection with SARS-CoV-2 recover relatively quickly and without significant sequelae, according to a research letter published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

“The results of this research letter offer some reassurance as has been the case with other longitudinal reports, that children with MIS-C largely recover from the illness with minimal sequelae,” said Kanwal M. Farooqi, MD, a pediatric cardiologist from Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.

“This is despite the severity of the initial clinical presentation, which can be quite significant with signs of systemic inflammation, hypotension, and need for ICU-level care,” continued Dr. Farooqi, who was not involved in the study.

Given that little is known about the medium- and long-term effects of MIS-C following infection with COVID-19, Patrick Davies, MRCPCH, Nottingham (England) University Hospitals NHS Trust, and colleagues reviewed data from one of the earliest multicenter national cohorts of children in the United Kingdom. The cohort included children admitted to the hospital prior to May 10, 2020, and the analysis was based on data from 68 of 76 (89%) patients of the initial surviving cohort. Information regarding critical care readmissions and outpatient follow-up visits up to April 1, 2021 (1-year post admission), was included in the analysis.

Overall laboratory results appeared normal for most children at 50 days post admission, including neutrophils, platelets, ferritin, creatinine, and alanine transaminase. Just 3% (2/65 test results) of children showed elevated levels of C-reactive protein, 3% (2/59 test results) for D-dimer, and 2% (1/60 test results) for troponin.

Based on echocardiographic data, 14 of the 19 patients who presented with aneurysms had resolution. Nine of 10 patients who presented with “bright” coronary arteries had resolution and only one progressed to having unresolved coronary artery aneurysms with the latest follow-up at 86 days post admission. All of the 38 patients who presented with impaired function without aneurysm had recovered by day 74.

Of the six patients with ongoing echocardiographic abnormalities, all had aneurysmal changes noted on echocardiograms performed between 86 and 336 days post admission. The authors were surprised to find that troponin levels in this group were lower when compared with others in the cohort (0.06 ng/mL [interquartile range, 0.02-0.418 ng/mL] vs. 0.157 ng/mL [0.033-0.81 ng/mL]; P = .02).

These six patients ranged in age from 0 to 13 years (median age, 8.75 years); five were Afro Caribbean boys and one was a White girl.

The researchers acknowledged that, despite coming from a nationwide data set, the interpretation of this data is limited given the small size of the cohort and the lack of standardized follow-up protocol available at the time.

When asked how this data might inform follow-up guidance for children post COVID infection, Dr. Farooqi said, “although it appears from the data that we have seen in the last few months that the patients recover relatively quickly from MIS-C, I believe it is reasonable to evaluate them at 6-month intervals for the second year until we have more information regarding longer-term outcomes.”

The study authors and Dr. Farooqi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most children who develop multisystemic inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) after infection with SARS-CoV-2 recover relatively quickly and without significant sequelae, according to a research letter published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

“The results of this research letter offer some reassurance as has been the case with other longitudinal reports, that children with MIS-C largely recover from the illness with minimal sequelae,” said Kanwal M. Farooqi, MD, a pediatric cardiologist from Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.

“This is despite the severity of the initial clinical presentation, which can be quite significant with signs of systemic inflammation, hypotension, and need for ICU-level care,” continued Dr. Farooqi, who was not involved in the study.

Given that little is known about the medium- and long-term effects of MIS-C following infection with COVID-19, Patrick Davies, MRCPCH, Nottingham (England) University Hospitals NHS Trust, and colleagues reviewed data from one of the earliest multicenter national cohorts of children in the United Kingdom. The cohort included children admitted to the hospital prior to May 10, 2020, and the analysis was based on data from 68 of 76 (89%) patients of the initial surviving cohort. Information regarding critical care readmissions and outpatient follow-up visits up to April 1, 2021 (1-year post admission), was included in the analysis.

Overall laboratory results appeared normal for most children at 50 days post admission, including neutrophils, platelets, ferritin, creatinine, and alanine transaminase. Just 3% (2/65 test results) of children showed elevated levels of C-reactive protein, 3% (2/59 test results) for D-dimer, and 2% (1/60 test results) for troponin.

Based on echocardiographic data, 14 of the 19 patients who presented with aneurysms had resolution. Nine of 10 patients who presented with “bright” coronary arteries had resolution and only one progressed to having unresolved coronary artery aneurysms with the latest follow-up at 86 days post admission. All of the 38 patients who presented with impaired function without aneurysm had recovered by day 74.

Of the six patients with ongoing echocardiographic abnormalities, all had aneurysmal changes noted on echocardiograms performed between 86 and 336 days post admission. The authors were surprised to find that troponin levels in this group were lower when compared with others in the cohort (0.06 ng/mL [interquartile range, 0.02-0.418 ng/mL] vs. 0.157 ng/mL [0.033-0.81 ng/mL]; P = .02).

These six patients ranged in age from 0 to 13 years (median age, 8.75 years); five were Afro Caribbean boys and one was a White girl.

The researchers acknowledged that, despite coming from a nationwide data set, the interpretation of this data is limited given the small size of the cohort and the lack of standardized follow-up protocol available at the time.

When asked how this data might inform follow-up guidance for children post COVID infection, Dr. Farooqi said, “although it appears from the data that we have seen in the last few months that the patients recover relatively quickly from MIS-C, I believe it is reasonable to evaluate them at 6-month intervals for the second year until we have more information regarding longer-term outcomes.”

The study authors and Dr. Farooqi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly half of people who are hospitalized with COVID-19 suffer at least one lingering symptom 1 year after discharge, according to the largest study yet to assess the dynamic recovery of a group of COVID-19 survivors 12 months after the illness.

The most common lingering symptoms are fatigue and muscle weakness. One-third continue to have shortness of breath.

Overall, at 12 months, COVID-19 survivors had more problems with mobility, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression, and had lower self-assessment scores of quality of life than matched COVID-free peers, the investigators report. 

The study was published online Aug. 28 in The Lancet.

“While most had made a good recovery, health problems persisted in some patients, especially those who had been critically ill during their hospital stay,” Bin Cao, MD, from the National Center for Respiratory Medicine at the China-Japan Friendship Hospital and Capital Medical University, both in Beijing, said in a Lancet news release.

“Our findings suggest that recovery for some patients will take longer than 1 year, and this should be taken into account when planning delivery of health care services post pandemic,” Dr. Cao said.

“As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, the need to understand and respond to long COVID is increasingly pressing,” says a Lancet editorial.

“Symptoms such as persistent fatigue, breathlessness, brain fog, and depression could debilitate many millions of people globally. Long COVID is a modern medical challenge of the first order,” it reads.
 

Study details

Dr. Cao and colleagues studied 1,276 COVID-19 patients (median age 59; 53% men) discharged from a hospital in Wuhan, China, between Jan. 7 and May 29, 2020. The patients were assessed at 6 and 12 months from the date they first experienced COVID-19 symptoms.

Many symptoms resolved over time, regardless of the severity of illness. Yet 49% of patients still had at least one symptom 12 months after their acute illness, down from 68% at the 6-month mark, the authors report.

Fatigue and muscle weakness were the most commonly reported symptoms seen in 52% of patients at 6 months and 20% at 12 months. Compared with men, women were 1.4 times more likely to report fatigue or muscle weakness.

Patients treated with corticosteroids during the acute phase of COVID-19 were 1.5 times as likely to experience fatigue or muscle weakness after 12 months, compared with those who had not received corticosteroids.

Thirty percent of patients reported dyspnea at 12 months, slightly more than at 6 months (26%). Dyspnea was more common in the most severely ill patients needing a ventilator during their hospital stay (39%), compared with those who did not need oxygen treatment (25%).

At the 6-month check, 349 study participants underwent pulmonary function tests and 244 of those patients completed the same test at 12 months.

Spirometric and lung volume parameters of most of these patients were within normal limits at 12 months. But lung diffusion impairment was observed in about 20%-30% of patients who had been moderately ill with COVID-19 and as high as 54% in critically ill patients. 

Compared with men, women were almost three times as likely to have lung diffusion impairment after 12 months.

Of 186 patients with abnormal lung CT scan at 6 months, 118 patients had a repeat CT scan at 12 months. The lung imaging abnormality gradually recovered during follow-up, yet 76% of the most critically ill patients still had ground glass opacity at 12 months.

Mental health hit

Among those patients who had been employed full- or part-time before catching COVID, the majority had returned to their original job (88%) and most had returned to their pre-COVID-19 level of work (76%) within 12 months.

Among those who did not return to their original work, 32% cited decreased physical function, 25% were unwilling to do their previous job, and 18% were unemployed.

As shown in multiple other studies, COVID-19 can take a toll on mental health. In this cohort, slightly more patients reported anxiety or depression at 12 months than at 6 months (23% vs. 26%), and the proportion was much greater than in matched community-dwelling adults without COVID-19 (5%).

Compared with men, women were twice as likely to report anxiety or depression.

“We do not yet fully understand why psychiatric symptoms are slightly more common at 1 year than at 6 months in COVID-19 survivors,” study author Xiaoying Gu, PhD, from the Institute of Clinical Medical Sciences, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, said in the news release.

“These could be caused by a biological process linked to the virus infection itself, or the body’s immune response to it. Or they could be linked to reduced social contact, loneliness, incomplete recovery of physical health, or loss of employment associated with illness. Large, long-term studies of COVID-19 survivors are needed so that we can better understand the long-term physical and mental health consequences of COVID-19,” Dr. Gu said.

The authors caution that the findings represent a group of patients from a single hospital in China and the cohort included only a small number of patients who had been admitted to intensive care (94 of 1,276; 7.4%).

The Lancet editorial urges the scientific and medical community to “collaborate to explore the mechanism and pathogenesis of long COVID, estimate the global and regional disease burdens, better delineate who is most at risk, understand how vaccines might affect the condition, and find effective treatments via randomized controlled trials.”

“At the same time, health care providers must acknowledge and validate the toll of the persistent symptoms of long COVID on patients, and health systems need to be prepared to meet individualized, patient-oriented goals, with an appropriately trained workforce involving physical, cognitive, social, and occupational elements,” the editorial states.

“Answering these research questions while providing compassionate and multidisciplinary care will require the full breadth of scientific and medical ingenuity. It is a challenge to which the whole health community must rise,” the editorialists conclude.

The study was funded by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, the China Evergrande Group, the Jack Ma Foundation, Sino Biopharmaceutical, the Ping An Insurance (Group), and the New Sunshine Charity Foundation. The full list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Nearly half of people who are hospitalized with COVID-19 suffer at least one lingering symptom 1 year after discharge, according to the largest study yet to assess the dynamic recovery of a group of COVID-19 survivors 12 months after the illness.

The most common lingering symptoms are fatigue and muscle weakness. One-third continue to have shortness of breath.

Overall, at 12 months, COVID-19 survivors had more problems with mobility, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression, and had lower self-assessment scores of quality of life than matched COVID-free peers, the investigators report. 

The study was published online Aug. 28 in The Lancet.

“While most had made a good recovery, health problems persisted in some patients, especially those who had been critically ill during their hospital stay,” Bin Cao, MD, from the National Center for Respiratory Medicine at the China-Japan Friendship Hospital and Capital Medical University, both in Beijing, said in a Lancet news release.

“Our findings suggest that recovery for some patients will take longer than 1 year, and this should be taken into account when planning delivery of health care services post pandemic,” Dr. Cao said.

“As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, the need to understand and respond to long COVID is increasingly pressing,” says a Lancet editorial.

“Symptoms such as persistent fatigue, breathlessness, brain fog, and depression could debilitate many millions of people globally. Long COVID is a modern medical challenge of the first order,” it reads.
 

Study details

Dr. Cao and colleagues studied 1,276 COVID-19 patients (median age 59; 53% men) discharged from a hospital in Wuhan, China, between Jan. 7 and May 29, 2020. The patients were assessed at 6 and 12 months from the date they first experienced COVID-19 symptoms.

Many symptoms resolved over time, regardless of the severity of illness. Yet 49% of patients still had at least one symptom 12 months after their acute illness, down from 68% at the 6-month mark, the authors report.

Fatigue and muscle weakness were the most commonly reported symptoms seen in 52% of patients at 6 months and 20% at 12 months. Compared with men, women were 1.4 times more likely to report fatigue or muscle weakness.

Patients treated with corticosteroids during the acute phase of COVID-19 were 1.5 times as likely to experience fatigue or muscle weakness after 12 months, compared with those who had not received corticosteroids.

Thirty percent of patients reported dyspnea at 12 months, slightly more than at 6 months (26%). Dyspnea was more common in the most severely ill patients needing a ventilator during their hospital stay (39%), compared with those who did not need oxygen treatment (25%).

At the 6-month check, 349 study participants underwent pulmonary function tests and 244 of those patients completed the same test at 12 months.

Spirometric and lung volume parameters of most of these patients were within normal limits at 12 months. But lung diffusion impairment was observed in about 20%-30% of patients who had been moderately ill with COVID-19 and as high as 54% in critically ill patients. 

Compared with men, women were almost three times as likely to have lung diffusion impairment after 12 months.

Of 186 patients with abnormal lung CT scan at 6 months, 118 patients had a repeat CT scan at 12 months. The lung imaging abnormality gradually recovered during follow-up, yet 76% of the most critically ill patients still had ground glass opacity at 12 months.

Mental health hit

Among those patients who had been employed full- or part-time before catching COVID, the majority had returned to their original job (88%) and most had returned to their pre-COVID-19 level of work (76%) within 12 months.

Among those who did not return to their original work, 32% cited decreased physical function, 25% were unwilling to do their previous job, and 18% were unemployed.

As shown in multiple other studies, COVID-19 can take a toll on mental health. In this cohort, slightly more patients reported anxiety or depression at 12 months than at 6 months (23% vs. 26%), and the proportion was much greater than in matched community-dwelling adults without COVID-19 (5%).

Compared with men, women were twice as likely to report anxiety or depression.

“We do not yet fully understand why psychiatric symptoms are slightly more common at 1 year than at 6 months in COVID-19 survivors,” study author Xiaoying Gu, PhD, from the Institute of Clinical Medical Sciences, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, said in the news release.

“These could be caused by a biological process linked to the virus infection itself, or the body’s immune response to it. Or they could be linked to reduced social contact, loneliness, incomplete recovery of physical health, or loss of employment associated with illness. Large, long-term studies of COVID-19 survivors are needed so that we can better understand the long-term physical and mental health consequences of COVID-19,” Dr. Gu said.

The authors caution that the findings represent a group of patients from a single hospital in China and the cohort included only a small number of patients who had been admitted to intensive care (94 of 1,276; 7.4%).

The Lancet editorial urges the scientific and medical community to “collaborate to explore the mechanism and pathogenesis of long COVID, estimate the global and regional disease burdens, better delineate who is most at risk, understand how vaccines might affect the condition, and find effective treatments via randomized controlled trials.”

“At the same time, health care providers must acknowledge and validate the toll of the persistent symptoms of long COVID on patients, and health systems need to be prepared to meet individualized, patient-oriented goals, with an appropriately trained workforce involving physical, cognitive, social, and occupational elements,” the editorial states.

“Answering these research questions while providing compassionate and multidisciplinary care will require the full breadth of scientific and medical ingenuity. It is a challenge to which the whole health community must rise,” the editorialists conclude.

The study was funded by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, the China Evergrande Group, the Jack Ma Foundation, Sino Biopharmaceutical, the Ping An Insurance (Group), and the New Sunshine Charity Foundation. The full list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Nearly half of people who are hospitalized with COVID-19 suffer at least one lingering symptom 1 year after discharge, according to the largest study yet to assess the dynamic recovery of a group of COVID-19 survivors 12 months after the illness.

The most common lingering symptoms are fatigue and muscle weakness. One-third continue to have shortness of breath.

Overall, at 12 months, COVID-19 survivors had more problems with mobility, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression, and had lower self-assessment scores of quality of life than matched COVID-free peers, the investigators report. 

The study was published online Aug. 28 in The Lancet.

“While most had made a good recovery, health problems persisted in some patients, especially those who had been critically ill during their hospital stay,” Bin Cao, MD, from the National Center for Respiratory Medicine at the China-Japan Friendship Hospital and Capital Medical University, both in Beijing, said in a Lancet news release.

“Our findings suggest that recovery for some patients will take longer than 1 year, and this should be taken into account when planning delivery of health care services post pandemic,” Dr. Cao said.

“As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, the need to understand and respond to long COVID is increasingly pressing,” says a Lancet editorial.

“Symptoms such as persistent fatigue, breathlessness, brain fog, and depression could debilitate many millions of people globally. Long COVID is a modern medical challenge of the first order,” it reads.
 

Study details

Dr. Cao and colleagues studied 1,276 COVID-19 patients (median age 59; 53% men) discharged from a hospital in Wuhan, China, between Jan. 7 and May 29, 2020. The patients were assessed at 6 and 12 months from the date they first experienced COVID-19 symptoms.

Many symptoms resolved over time, regardless of the severity of illness. Yet 49% of patients still had at least one symptom 12 months after their acute illness, down from 68% at the 6-month mark, the authors report.

Fatigue and muscle weakness were the most commonly reported symptoms seen in 52% of patients at 6 months and 20% at 12 months. Compared with men, women were 1.4 times more likely to report fatigue or muscle weakness.

Patients treated with corticosteroids during the acute phase of COVID-19 were 1.5 times as likely to experience fatigue or muscle weakness after 12 months, compared with those who had not received corticosteroids.

Thirty percent of patients reported dyspnea at 12 months, slightly more than at 6 months (26%). Dyspnea was more common in the most severely ill patients needing a ventilator during their hospital stay (39%), compared with those who did not need oxygen treatment (25%).

At the 6-month check, 349 study participants underwent pulmonary function tests and 244 of those patients completed the same test at 12 months.

Spirometric and lung volume parameters of most of these patients were within normal limits at 12 months. But lung diffusion impairment was observed in about 20%-30% of patients who had been moderately ill with COVID-19 and as high as 54% in critically ill patients. 

Compared with men, women were almost three times as likely to have lung diffusion impairment after 12 months.

Of 186 patients with abnormal lung CT scan at 6 months, 118 patients had a repeat CT scan at 12 months. The lung imaging abnormality gradually recovered during follow-up, yet 76% of the most critically ill patients still had ground glass opacity at 12 months.

Mental health hit

Among those patients who had been employed full- or part-time before catching COVID, the majority had returned to their original job (88%) and most had returned to their pre-COVID-19 level of work (76%) within 12 months.

Among those who did not return to their original work, 32% cited decreased physical function, 25% were unwilling to do their previous job, and 18% were unemployed.

As shown in multiple other studies, COVID-19 can take a toll on mental health. In this cohort, slightly more patients reported anxiety or depression at 12 months than at 6 months (23% vs. 26%), and the proportion was much greater than in matched community-dwelling adults without COVID-19 (5%).

Compared with men, women were twice as likely to report anxiety or depression.

“We do not yet fully understand why psychiatric symptoms are slightly more common at 1 year than at 6 months in COVID-19 survivors,” study author Xiaoying Gu, PhD, from the Institute of Clinical Medical Sciences, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, said in the news release.

“These could be caused by a biological process linked to the virus infection itself, or the body’s immune response to it. Or they could be linked to reduced social contact, loneliness, incomplete recovery of physical health, or loss of employment associated with illness. Large, long-term studies of COVID-19 survivors are needed so that we can better understand the long-term physical and mental health consequences of COVID-19,” Dr. Gu said.

The authors caution that the findings represent a group of patients from a single hospital in China and the cohort included only a small number of patients who had been admitted to intensive care (94 of 1,276; 7.4%).

The Lancet editorial urges the scientific and medical community to “collaborate to explore the mechanism and pathogenesis of long COVID, estimate the global and regional disease burdens, better delineate who is most at risk, understand how vaccines might affect the condition, and find effective treatments via randomized controlled trials.”

“At the same time, health care providers must acknowledge and validate the toll of the persistent symptoms of long COVID on patients, and health systems need to be prepared to meet individualized, patient-oriented goals, with an appropriately trained workforce involving physical, cognitive, social, and occupational elements,” the editorial states.

“Answering these research questions while providing compassionate and multidisciplinary care will require the full breadth of scientific and medical ingenuity. It is a challenge to which the whole health community must rise,” the editorialists conclude.

The study was funded by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, the China Evergrande Group, the Jack Ma Foundation, Sino Biopharmaceutical, the Ping An Insurance (Group), and the New Sunshine Charity Foundation. The full list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

The transition from undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education in the United States needs comprehensive reform, says a new report from the Graduate Medical Education Review Committee (UGRC) of the Coalition for Physician Accountability.

The 275-page report presents preliminary findings that were released in April 2021 and a long list of stakeholder comments. According to the report, the coalition will meet soon to discuss the final recommendations and consider next steps toward implementation.

The UGRC includes representatives of national medical organizations, medical schools, and residency programs. Among the organizations that participated in the report’s creation are the American Medical Association, the National Board of Medical Examiners, the American Osteopathic Association, the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, and the Association of American Medical Colleges.

The report identifies a list of challenges that affect the transition of medical students into residency programs and beyond. They include:

• Too much focus on finding and filling residency positions instead of “assuring learner competence and readiness for residency training”
• Inattention to assuring congruence between applicant goals and program missions
• Overreliance on licensure exam scores rather than “valid, trustworthy measures of students’ competence and clinical abilities”
• Increasing financial costs to students
• Individual and systemic biases in the UME-GME transition, as well as inequities related to international medical graduates

Seeking a common framework for competence

Overall, the report calls for increased standardization of how students are evaluated in medical school and how residency programs evaluate students. Less reliance should be placed on the numerical scores of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), the report says, and more attention should be paid to the direct observation of student performance in clinical situations. In addition, the various organizations involved in the UME-GME transition process are asked to work better together.

To develop better methods of evaluating medical students and residents, UME and GME educators should jointly define and implement a common framework and set of competencies to apply to learners across the UME-GME transition, the report suggests.

While emphasizing the need for a broader student assessment framework, the report says, USMLE scores should also continue to be used in judging residency applicants. “Assessment information should be shared in residency applications and a postmatch learner handover. Licensing examinations should be used for their intended purpose to ensure requisite competence.”

Among the committee’s three dozen recommendations are the following:

• The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should change the GME funding structure so that the initial residency period is calculated starting with the second year of postgraduate training. This change would allow residents to reconsider their career choices. Currently, if a resident decides to switch to another program or specialty after beginning training, the hospital may not receive full GME funding, so may be less likely to approve the change.
• Residency programs should improve recruitment practices to increase specialty-specific diversity of residents. Medical educators should also receive additional training regarding antiracism, avoiding bias, and ensuring equity.
• The self-reported demographic information of applicants to residency programs should be measured and shared with stakeholders, including the programs and medical schools, to promote equity. “A residency program that finds bias in its selection process could go back in real time to find qualified applicants who may have been missed, potentially improving outcomes,” the report notes.
• An interactive database of GME program and specialty track information should be created and made available to all applicants, medical schools, and residency programs at no cost to applicants. “Applicants and their advisors should be able to sort the information according to demographic and educational features that may significantly impact the likelihood of matching at a program.”

Less than half of applicants get in-depth reviews

The 2020 National Resident Matching Program Program Director Survey found that only 49% of applications received in-depth review. In light of this, the report suggests that the application system be updated to use modern information technology, including discrete fields for key data to expedite application reviews.

Many applications have been discarded because of various filters used to block consideration of certain applications. The report suggests that new filters be designed to ensure that each detects meaningful differences among applicants and promotes review based on mission alignment and likelihood of success in a program. Filters should be improved to decrease the likelihood of random exclusions of qualified applicants.

Specialty-specific, just-in-time training for all incoming first-year residents is also suggested to support the transition from the role of student to a physician ready to assume increased responsibility for patient care. In addition, the report urges adequate time be allowed between medical school graduation and residency to enable new residents to relocate and find homes.

The report also calls for a standardized process in the United States for initial licensing of doctors at entrance to residency in order to streamline the process of credentialing for both residency training and continuing practice.
 

Osteopathic students’ dilemma

To promote equitable treatment of applicants regardless of licensure examination requirements, comparable exams with different scales (COMLEX-USA and USMLE) should be reported within the electronic application system in a single field, the report said.

Osteopathic students, who make up 25% of U.S. medical students, must take the COMLEX-USA exam, but residency programs may filter them out if they don’t also take the USMLE exam. Thus, many osteopathic students take both exams, incurring extra time, cost, and stress.

The UGRC recommends creating a combined field in the electronic residency application service that normalizes the scores between the two exams. Residency programs could then filter applications based only on the single normalized score.

This approach makes sense from the viewpoint that it would reduce the pressure on osteopathic students to take the USMLE, Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken critic of various current training policies, said in an interview. But it could also have serious disadvantages.

For one thing, only osteopathic students can take the COMLEX-USA exam, he noted. If they don’t like their score, they can then take the USMLE test to get a higher score – an option that allopathic students don’t have. It’s not clear that they’d be prevented from doing this under the UGRC recommendation.

Second, he said, osteopathic students, on average, don’t do as well as allopathic students on the UMSLE exam. If they only take the COMLEX-USA test, they’re competing against other students who don’t do as well on tests as allopathic students do. If their scores were normalized with those of the USMLE test takers, they’d gain an unfair advantage against students who can only take the USMLE, including international medical graduates.

Although Dr. Carmody admitted that osteopathic students face a harder challenge than allopathic students in matching to residency programs, he said that the UGRC approach to the licensing exams might actually penalize them further. As a result of the scores of the two exams being averaged, residency program directors might discount the scores of all osteopathic students.

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

The transition from undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education in the United States needs comprehensive reform, says a new report from the Graduate Medical Education Review Committee (UGRC) of the Coalition for Physician Accountability.

The 275-page report presents preliminary findings that were released in April 2021 and a long list of stakeholder comments. According to the report, the coalition will meet soon to discuss the final recommendations and consider next steps toward implementation.

The UGRC includes representatives of national medical organizations, medical schools, and residency programs. Among the organizations that participated in the report’s creation are the American Medical Association, the National Board of Medical Examiners, the American Osteopathic Association, the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, and the Association of American Medical Colleges.

The report identifies a list of challenges that affect the transition of medical students into residency programs and beyond. They include:

• Too much focus on finding and filling residency positions instead of “assuring learner competence and readiness for residency training”
• Inattention to assuring congruence between applicant goals and program missions
• Overreliance on licensure exam scores rather than “valid, trustworthy measures of students’ competence and clinical abilities”
• Increasing financial costs to students
• Individual and systemic biases in the UME-GME transition, as well as inequities related to international medical graduates

Seeking a common framework for competence

Overall, the report calls for increased standardization of how students are evaluated in medical school and how residency programs evaluate students. Less reliance should be placed on the numerical scores of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), the report says, and more attention should be paid to the direct observation of student performance in clinical situations. In addition, the various organizations involved in the UME-GME transition process are asked to work better together.

To develop better methods of evaluating medical students and residents, UME and GME educators should jointly define and implement a common framework and set of competencies to apply to learners across the UME-GME transition, the report suggests.

While emphasizing the need for a broader student assessment framework, the report says, USMLE scores should also continue to be used in judging residency applicants. “Assessment information should be shared in residency applications and a postmatch learner handover. Licensing examinations should be used for their intended purpose to ensure requisite competence.”

Among the committee’s three dozen recommendations are the following:

• The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should change the GME funding structure so that the initial residency period is calculated starting with the second year of postgraduate training. This change would allow residents to reconsider their career choices. Currently, if a resident decides to switch to another program or specialty after beginning training, the hospital may not receive full GME funding, so may be less likely to approve the change.
• Residency programs should improve recruitment practices to increase specialty-specific diversity of residents. Medical educators should also receive additional training regarding antiracism, avoiding bias, and ensuring equity.
• The self-reported demographic information of applicants to residency programs should be measured and shared with stakeholders, including the programs and medical schools, to promote equity. “A residency program that finds bias in its selection process could go back in real time to find qualified applicants who may have been missed, potentially improving outcomes,” the report notes.
• An interactive database of GME program and specialty track information should be created and made available to all applicants, medical schools, and residency programs at no cost to applicants. “Applicants and their advisors should be able to sort the information according to demographic and educational features that may significantly impact the likelihood of matching at a program.”

Less than half of applicants get in-depth reviews

The 2020 National Resident Matching Program Program Director Survey found that only 49% of applications received in-depth review. In light of this, the report suggests that the application system be updated to use modern information technology, including discrete fields for key data to expedite application reviews.

Many applications have been discarded because of various filters used to block consideration of certain applications. The report suggests that new filters be designed to ensure that each detects meaningful differences among applicants and promotes review based on mission alignment and likelihood of success in a program. Filters should be improved to decrease the likelihood of random exclusions of qualified applicants.

Specialty-specific, just-in-time training for all incoming first-year residents is also suggested to support the transition from the role of student to a physician ready to assume increased responsibility for patient care. In addition, the report urges adequate time be allowed between medical school graduation and residency to enable new residents to relocate and find homes.

The report also calls for a standardized process in the United States for initial licensing of doctors at entrance to residency in order to streamline the process of credentialing for both residency training and continuing practice.
 

Osteopathic students’ dilemma

To promote equitable treatment of applicants regardless of licensure examination requirements, comparable exams with different scales (COMLEX-USA and USMLE) should be reported within the electronic application system in a single field, the report said.

Osteopathic students, who make up 25% of U.S. medical students, must take the COMLEX-USA exam, but residency programs may filter them out if they don’t also take the USMLE exam. Thus, many osteopathic students take both exams, incurring extra time, cost, and stress.

The UGRC recommends creating a combined field in the electronic residency application service that normalizes the scores between the two exams. Residency programs could then filter applications based only on the single normalized score.

This approach makes sense from the viewpoint that it would reduce the pressure on osteopathic students to take the USMLE, Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken critic of various current training policies, said in an interview. But it could also have serious disadvantages.

For one thing, only osteopathic students can take the COMLEX-USA exam, he noted. If they don’t like their score, they can then take the USMLE test to get a higher score – an option that allopathic students don’t have. It’s not clear that they’d be prevented from doing this under the UGRC recommendation.

Second, he said, osteopathic students, on average, don’t do as well as allopathic students on the UMSLE exam. If they only take the COMLEX-USA test, they’re competing against other students who don’t do as well on tests as allopathic students do. If their scores were normalized with those of the USMLE test takers, they’d gain an unfair advantage against students who can only take the USMLE, including international medical graduates.

Although Dr. Carmody admitted that osteopathic students face a harder challenge than allopathic students in matching to residency programs, he said that the UGRC approach to the licensing exams might actually penalize them further. As a result of the scores of the two exams being averaged, residency program directors might discount the scores of all osteopathic students.

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

The transition from undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education in the United States needs comprehensive reform, says a new report from the Graduate Medical Education Review Committee (UGRC) of the Coalition for Physician Accountability.

The 275-page report presents preliminary findings that were released in April 2021 and a long list of stakeholder comments. According to the report, the coalition will meet soon to discuss the final recommendations and consider next steps toward implementation.

The UGRC includes representatives of national medical organizations, medical schools, and residency programs. Among the organizations that participated in the report’s creation are the American Medical Association, the National Board of Medical Examiners, the American Osteopathic Association, the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, and the Association of American Medical Colleges.

The report identifies a list of challenges that affect the transition of medical students into residency programs and beyond. They include:

• Too much focus on finding and filling residency positions instead of “assuring learner competence and readiness for residency training”
• Inattention to assuring congruence between applicant goals and program missions
• Overreliance on licensure exam scores rather than “valid, trustworthy measures of students’ competence and clinical abilities”
• Increasing financial costs to students
• Individual and systemic biases in the UME-GME transition, as well as inequities related to international medical graduates

Seeking a common framework for competence

Overall, the report calls for increased standardization of how students are evaluated in medical school and how residency programs evaluate students. Less reliance should be placed on the numerical scores of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), the report says, and more attention should be paid to the direct observation of student performance in clinical situations. In addition, the various organizations involved in the UME-GME transition process are asked to work better together.

To develop better methods of evaluating medical students and residents, UME and GME educators should jointly define and implement a common framework and set of competencies to apply to learners across the UME-GME transition, the report suggests.

While emphasizing the need for a broader student assessment framework, the report says, USMLE scores should also continue to be used in judging residency applicants. “Assessment information should be shared in residency applications and a postmatch learner handover. Licensing examinations should be used for their intended purpose to ensure requisite competence.”

Among the committee’s three dozen recommendations are the following:

• The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should change the GME funding structure so that the initial residency period is calculated starting with the second year of postgraduate training. This change would allow residents to reconsider their career choices. Currently, if a resident decides to switch to another program or specialty after beginning training, the hospital may not receive full GME funding, so may be less likely to approve the change.
• Residency programs should improve recruitment practices to increase specialty-specific diversity of residents. Medical educators should also receive additional training regarding antiracism, avoiding bias, and ensuring equity.
• The self-reported demographic information of applicants to residency programs should be measured and shared with stakeholders, including the programs and medical schools, to promote equity. “A residency program that finds bias in its selection process could go back in real time to find qualified applicants who may have been missed, potentially improving outcomes,” the report notes.
• An interactive database of GME program and specialty track information should be created and made available to all applicants, medical schools, and residency programs at no cost to applicants. “Applicants and their advisors should be able to sort the information according to demographic and educational features that may significantly impact the likelihood of matching at a program.”

Less than half of applicants get in-depth reviews

The 2020 National Resident Matching Program Program Director Survey found that only 49% of applications received in-depth review. In light of this, the report suggests that the application system be updated to use modern information technology, including discrete fields for key data to expedite application reviews.

Many applications have been discarded because of various filters used to block consideration of certain applications. The report suggests that new filters be designed to ensure that each detects meaningful differences among applicants and promotes review based on mission alignment and likelihood of success in a program. Filters should be improved to decrease the likelihood of random exclusions of qualified applicants.

Specialty-specific, just-in-time training for all incoming first-year residents is also suggested to support the transition from the role of student to a physician ready to assume increased responsibility for patient care. In addition, the report urges adequate time be allowed between medical school graduation and residency to enable new residents to relocate and find homes.

The report also calls for a standardized process in the United States for initial licensing of doctors at entrance to residency in order to streamline the process of credentialing for both residency training and continuing practice.
 

Osteopathic students’ dilemma

To promote equitable treatment of applicants regardless of licensure examination requirements, comparable exams with different scales (COMLEX-USA and USMLE) should be reported within the electronic application system in a single field, the report said.

Osteopathic students, who make up 25% of U.S. medical students, must take the COMLEX-USA exam, but residency programs may filter them out if they don’t also take the USMLE exam. Thus, many osteopathic students take both exams, incurring extra time, cost, and stress.

The UGRC recommends creating a combined field in the electronic residency application service that normalizes the scores between the two exams. Residency programs could then filter applications based only on the single normalized score.

This approach makes sense from the viewpoint that it would reduce the pressure on osteopathic students to take the USMLE, Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken critic of various current training policies, said in an interview. But it could also have serious disadvantages.

For one thing, only osteopathic students can take the COMLEX-USA exam, he noted. If they don’t like their score, they can then take the USMLE test to get a higher score – an option that allopathic students don’t have. It’s not clear that they’d be prevented from doing this under the UGRC recommendation.

Second, he said, osteopathic students, on average, don’t do as well as allopathic students on the UMSLE exam. If they only take the COMLEX-USA test, they’re competing against other students who don’t do as well on tests as allopathic students do. If their scores were normalized with those of the USMLE test takers, they’d gain an unfair advantage against students who can only take the USMLE, including international medical graduates.

Although Dr. Carmody admitted that osteopathic students face a harder challenge than allopathic students in matching to residency programs, he said that the UGRC approach to the licensing exams might actually penalize them further. As a result of the scores of the two exams being averaged, residency program directors might discount the scores of all osteopathic students.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for brivaracetam (Briviact, UCB) as both monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in patients as young as 1 month of age.

All three brivaracetam formulations (tablets, oral solution, and IV) may now be used. The approval marks the first time that the IV formulation will be available for children, the company said in a news release.

The medication is already approved in the United States as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy in adults with epilepsy.

In an open-label follow-up pediatric study, an estimated 71.4% of patients aged 1 month to 17 years with partial-onset seizures remained on brivaracetam therapy at 1 year, and 64.3% did so at 2 years, the company reported.

“We often see children with seizures hospitalized, so it’s important to have a therapy like Briviact IV that can offer rapid administration in an effective dose when needed and does not require titration,” Raman Sankar, MD, PhD, distinguished professor and chief of pediatric neurology, University of California, Los Angeles, said in the release.

“The availability of the oral dose forms also allows continuity of treatment when these young patients are transitioning from hospital to home,” he added.
 

Safety profile

Dr. Sankar noted that with approval now of both the IV and oral formulations for partial-onset seizures in such young children, “we have a new option that helps meet a critical need in pediatric epilepsy.”

The most common adverse reactions with brivaracetam include somnolence and sedation, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. In the pediatric clinical trials, the safety profile for pediatric patients was similar to adults.

In the adult trials, psychiatric adverse reactions, including nonpsychotic and psychotic symptoms, were reported in approximately 13% of adults taking at least 50 mg/day of brivaracetam compared with 8% taking placebo.

Psychiatric adverse reactions were also observed in open-label pediatric trials and were generally similar to those observed in adults.

Patients should be advised to report these symptoms immediately to a health care professional, the company noted.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for brivaracetam (Briviact, UCB) as both monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in patients as young as 1 month of age.

All three brivaracetam formulations (tablets, oral solution, and IV) may now be used. The approval marks the first time that the IV formulation will be available for children, the company said in a news release.

The medication is already approved in the United States as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy in adults with epilepsy.

In an open-label follow-up pediatric study, an estimated 71.4% of patients aged 1 month to 17 years with partial-onset seizures remained on brivaracetam therapy at 1 year, and 64.3% did so at 2 years, the company reported.

“We often see children with seizures hospitalized, so it’s important to have a therapy like Briviact IV that can offer rapid administration in an effective dose when needed and does not require titration,” Raman Sankar, MD, PhD, distinguished professor and chief of pediatric neurology, University of California, Los Angeles, said in the release.

“The availability of the oral dose forms also allows continuity of treatment when these young patients are transitioning from hospital to home,” he added.
 

Safety profile

Dr. Sankar noted that with approval now of both the IV and oral formulations for partial-onset seizures in such young children, “we have a new option that helps meet a critical need in pediatric epilepsy.”

The most common adverse reactions with brivaracetam include somnolence and sedation, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. In the pediatric clinical trials, the safety profile for pediatric patients was similar to adults.

In the adult trials, psychiatric adverse reactions, including nonpsychotic and psychotic symptoms, were reported in approximately 13% of adults taking at least 50 mg/day of brivaracetam compared with 8% taking placebo.

Psychiatric adverse reactions were also observed in open-label pediatric trials and were generally similar to those observed in adults.

Patients should be advised to report these symptoms immediately to a health care professional, the company noted.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for brivaracetam (Briviact, UCB) as both monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in patients as young as 1 month of age.

All three brivaracetam formulations (tablets, oral solution, and IV) may now be used. The approval marks the first time that the IV formulation will be available for children, the company said in a news release.

The medication is already approved in the United States as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy in adults with epilepsy.

In an open-label follow-up pediatric study, an estimated 71.4% of patients aged 1 month to 17 years with partial-onset seizures remained on brivaracetam therapy at 1 year, and 64.3% did so at 2 years, the company reported.

“We often see children with seizures hospitalized, so it’s important to have a therapy like Briviact IV that can offer rapid administration in an effective dose when needed and does not require titration,” Raman Sankar, MD, PhD, distinguished professor and chief of pediatric neurology, University of California, Los Angeles, said in the release.

“The availability of the oral dose forms also allows continuity of treatment when these young patients are transitioning from hospital to home,” he added.
 

Safety profile

Dr. Sankar noted that with approval now of both the IV and oral formulations for partial-onset seizures in such young children, “we have a new option that helps meet a critical need in pediatric epilepsy.”

The most common adverse reactions with brivaracetam include somnolence and sedation, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. In the pediatric clinical trials, the safety profile for pediatric patients was similar to adults.

In the adult trials, psychiatric adverse reactions, including nonpsychotic and psychotic symptoms, were reported in approximately 13% of adults taking at least 50 mg/day of brivaracetam compared with 8% taking placebo.

Psychiatric adverse reactions were also observed in open-label pediatric trials and were generally similar to those observed in adults.

Patients should be advised to report these symptoms immediately to a health care professional, the company noted.

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