MDedge Pediatrics

NEW YORK — Underrepresentation by gender and race in major clinical trials has been a cause for complaint for decades, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has drafted a regulatory solution to this issue expected to be implemented sometime in 2025.

This initiative, known as the FDA’s Diversity Action Plan (DAP), will require plans for all pivotal and phase 3 trials to provide details in their design of how diversity will be achieved or, if there are no plans for diversity, the reason why, according to Valerie M. Harvey, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Blacksburg, Virginia. These rules will be codified, she said at the 2024 Skin of Color Update.

Once the DAP is enacted, “the sponsor must specify the rationale and goals for study enrollment by age, ethnicity, sex, and race,” she said. Furthermore, the submission to the FDA must “describe the methods to meet the diversity benchmarks.”
 

Lack of Trial Diversity Is Common Across Medicine

Although she focused on the relevance of this initiative to dermatology, Dr. Harvey said the lack of diversity in clinical trials is pervasive throughout medicine. In one survey of randomized controlled trials, less than 60% of trials even specified the race and ethnicity of the participants. In recent psoriasis trials, only 30% met a diversity definition of ≥ 20% of patients identifying as minority (Black, Hispanic, Asian, or other non-White group), said Dr. Harvey, who practices dermatology in Newport News, Virginia.

The FDA draft guidance for the DAP was released in June 2024 and is now available for submitting comments (until September 26). The plan is expected to be published in June 2025, according to Dr. Harvey. It will pertain to all pivotal and phase 3 trials enrolling 180 days after the publication date and will be relevant to all drugs and biologics as well as certain devices.

This initiative could be a critical step toward ensuring diversity in major clinical trials after years of stagnation, Dr. Harvey said, noting that despite repeated calls for more diversity in clinical trials, the literature suggests “little progress.”

However, she said that increasing diversity in clinical trials is just one step toward gathering data about the generalizability of efficacy and safety across racial and ethnic groups. A much more complex issue involves how race and ethnicity are defined in order to understand differences, if any, for efficacy and risk.

“Race is a dynamic social construct and a poor measure for biologic variation and skin color,” Dr. Harvey said. This means that work is needed to address the more complex issue of race and ethnicity stratification that will help clinicians understand the relative benefits and risks for the drugs in these trials.

Rather than differences based on genetic or other sources of biologic differences, she said, outcomes by race alone are often suspected of reflecting disparities in access to healthcare rather than a difference in therapeutic response.
 

Skin Color Is Inadequate to Define Race

When stratifying patients by race or ethnicity, Dr. Harvey said that “we have to be very, very careful in considering the study purpose and what the study question is.” A study attempting to compare benefits and risks among subgroups by race or ethnicity will require descriptors beyond skin color.

The recognized limitations of measuring skin tone as a surrogate of race are one reason for widespread interest in moving away from the Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) rating that has been widely considered a standard, according to Dr. Harvey. Several alternatives have been proposed, including the Monk Skin Tone Scale, the Individual Typology Angle, and the Eumelanin Human Skin Color Scale, but she cautioned that these are less well validated and generally have the limitations of the FST.

If skin color was ever useful for grouping individuals on the basis of shared physiology, growing rates of intermarriage and immigration have made skin color increasingly irrelevant to racial identity. If the goal is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs across racial groups and ethnicities, the characterization of populations will almost certainly require multiple descriptors and biomarkers, she said.

“It is very important to have many tools for characterizing patients by skin type,” Susan Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair for diversity, equity, and inclusion for the Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview at the meeting.

The reason is “there are limitations to all of them,” she said, noting also that the questions being asked about how and if skin color and race are relevant to therapeutic options differ by the question, such as innate response or access to care.

Dr. Taylor is part of a workshop that she said is evaluating a combination of instruments for characterizing skin color and race in ways relevant to the specific question being asked.

The solutions might differ. While simple clinical assessments involving skin color might be made with methods captured on a smartphone app, Dr. Taylor acknowledged that far more complex tools might be required to document the effect of racial or ethnic differences in drug efficacy and safety in a research setting.

Outside of a research setting, any tools that might be useful for assessing race as a variable must be practical, according to Dr. Harvey. She suggested that these must be time efficient, of reasonable cost, and most importantly, reliable.

Tools meeting these criteria do not currently exist, but Dr. Harvey said the work is underway. She expects a “top-down” collaborative approach to validate alternatives to the FST. If such tools can be developed with buy-in from the FDA, they might be particularly useful for translating trial data to patient care, she added.

Dr. Harvey reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oréal, and SkinCeuticals. Dr. Taylor, president-elect of the American Academy of Dermatology, reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Underrepresentation by gender and race in major clinical trials has been a cause for complaint for decades, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has drafted a regulatory solution to this issue expected to be implemented sometime in 2025.

This initiative, known as the FDA’s Diversity Action Plan (DAP), will require plans for all pivotal and phase 3 trials to provide details in their design of how diversity will be achieved or, if there are no plans for diversity, the reason why, according to Valerie M. Harvey, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Blacksburg, Virginia. These rules will be codified, she said at the 2024 Skin of Color Update.

Once the DAP is enacted, “the sponsor must specify the rationale and goals for study enrollment by age, ethnicity, sex, and race,” she said. Furthermore, the submission to the FDA must “describe the methods to meet the diversity benchmarks.”
 

Lack of Trial Diversity Is Common Across Medicine

Although she focused on the relevance of this initiative to dermatology, Dr. Harvey said the lack of diversity in clinical trials is pervasive throughout medicine. In one survey of randomized controlled trials, less than 60% of trials even specified the race and ethnicity of the participants. In recent psoriasis trials, only 30% met a diversity definition of ≥ 20% of patients identifying as minority (Black, Hispanic, Asian, or other non-White group), said Dr. Harvey, who practices dermatology in Newport News, Virginia.

The FDA draft guidance for the DAP was released in June 2024 and is now available for submitting comments (until September 26). The plan is expected to be published in June 2025, according to Dr. Harvey. It will pertain to all pivotal and phase 3 trials enrolling 180 days after the publication date and will be relevant to all drugs and biologics as well as certain devices.

This initiative could be a critical step toward ensuring diversity in major clinical trials after years of stagnation, Dr. Harvey said, noting that despite repeated calls for more diversity in clinical trials, the literature suggests “little progress.”

However, she said that increasing diversity in clinical trials is just one step toward gathering data about the generalizability of efficacy and safety across racial and ethnic groups. A much more complex issue involves how race and ethnicity are defined in order to understand differences, if any, for efficacy and risk.

“Race is a dynamic social construct and a poor measure for biologic variation and skin color,” Dr. Harvey said. This means that work is needed to address the more complex issue of race and ethnicity stratification that will help clinicians understand the relative benefits and risks for the drugs in these trials.

Rather than differences based on genetic or other sources of biologic differences, she said, outcomes by race alone are often suspected of reflecting disparities in access to healthcare rather than a difference in therapeutic response.
 

Skin Color Is Inadequate to Define Race

When stratifying patients by race or ethnicity, Dr. Harvey said that “we have to be very, very careful in considering the study purpose and what the study question is.” A study attempting to compare benefits and risks among subgroups by race or ethnicity will require descriptors beyond skin color.

The recognized limitations of measuring skin tone as a surrogate of race are one reason for widespread interest in moving away from the Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) rating that has been widely considered a standard, according to Dr. Harvey. Several alternatives have been proposed, including the Monk Skin Tone Scale, the Individual Typology Angle, and the Eumelanin Human Skin Color Scale, but she cautioned that these are less well validated and generally have the limitations of the FST.

If skin color was ever useful for grouping individuals on the basis of shared physiology, growing rates of intermarriage and immigration have made skin color increasingly irrelevant to racial identity. If the goal is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs across racial groups and ethnicities, the characterization of populations will almost certainly require multiple descriptors and biomarkers, she said.

“It is very important to have many tools for characterizing patients by skin type,” Susan Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair for diversity, equity, and inclusion for the Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview at the meeting.

The reason is “there are limitations to all of them,” she said, noting also that the questions being asked about how and if skin color and race are relevant to therapeutic options differ by the question, such as innate response or access to care.

Dr. Taylor is part of a workshop that she said is evaluating a combination of instruments for characterizing skin color and race in ways relevant to the specific question being asked.

The solutions might differ. While simple clinical assessments involving skin color might be made with methods captured on a smartphone app, Dr. Taylor acknowledged that far more complex tools might be required to document the effect of racial or ethnic differences in drug efficacy and safety in a research setting.

Outside of a research setting, any tools that might be useful for assessing race as a variable must be practical, according to Dr. Harvey. She suggested that these must be time efficient, of reasonable cost, and most importantly, reliable.

Tools meeting these criteria do not currently exist, but Dr. Harvey said the work is underway. She expects a “top-down” collaborative approach to validate alternatives to the FST. If such tools can be developed with buy-in from the FDA, they might be particularly useful for translating trial data to patient care, she added.

Dr. Harvey reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oréal, and SkinCeuticals. Dr. Taylor, president-elect of the American Academy of Dermatology, reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Underrepresentation by gender and race in major clinical trials has been a cause for complaint for decades, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has drafted a regulatory solution to this issue expected to be implemented sometime in 2025.

This initiative, known as the FDA’s Diversity Action Plan (DAP), will require plans for all pivotal and phase 3 trials to provide details in their design of how diversity will be achieved or, if there are no plans for diversity, the reason why, according to Valerie M. Harvey, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Blacksburg, Virginia. These rules will be codified, she said at the 2024 Skin of Color Update.

Once the DAP is enacted, “the sponsor must specify the rationale and goals for study enrollment by age, ethnicity, sex, and race,” she said. Furthermore, the submission to the FDA must “describe the methods to meet the diversity benchmarks.”
 

Lack of Trial Diversity Is Common Across Medicine

Although she focused on the relevance of this initiative to dermatology, Dr. Harvey said the lack of diversity in clinical trials is pervasive throughout medicine. In one survey of randomized controlled trials, less than 60% of trials even specified the race and ethnicity of the participants. In recent psoriasis trials, only 30% met a diversity definition of ≥ 20% of patients identifying as minority (Black, Hispanic, Asian, or other non-White group), said Dr. Harvey, who practices dermatology in Newport News, Virginia.

The FDA draft guidance for the DAP was released in June 2024 and is now available for submitting comments (until September 26). The plan is expected to be published in June 2025, according to Dr. Harvey. It will pertain to all pivotal and phase 3 trials enrolling 180 days after the publication date and will be relevant to all drugs and biologics as well as certain devices.

This initiative could be a critical step toward ensuring diversity in major clinical trials after years of stagnation, Dr. Harvey said, noting that despite repeated calls for more diversity in clinical trials, the literature suggests “little progress.”

However, she said that increasing diversity in clinical trials is just one step toward gathering data about the generalizability of efficacy and safety across racial and ethnic groups. A much more complex issue involves how race and ethnicity are defined in order to understand differences, if any, for efficacy and risk.

“Race is a dynamic social construct and a poor measure for biologic variation and skin color,” Dr. Harvey said. This means that work is needed to address the more complex issue of race and ethnicity stratification that will help clinicians understand the relative benefits and risks for the drugs in these trials.

Rather than differences based on genetic or other sources of biologic differences, she said, outcomes by race alone are often suspected of reflecting disparities in access to healthcare rather than a difference in therapeutic response.
 

Skin Color Is Inadequate to Define Race

When stratifying patients by race or ethnicity, Dr. Harvey said that “we have to be very, very careful in considering the study purpose and what the study question is.” A study attempting to compare benefits and risks among subgroups by race or ethnicity will require descriptors beyond skin color.

The recognized limitations of measuring skin tone as a surrogate of race are one reason for widespread interest in moving away from the Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) rating that has been widely considered a standard, according to Dr. Harvey. Several alternatives have been proposed, including the Monk Skin Tone Scale, the Individual Typology Angle, and the Eumelanin Human Skin Color Scale, but she cautioned that these are less well validated and generally have the limitations of the FST.

If skin color was ever useful for grouping individuals on the basis of shared physiology, growing rates of intermarriage and immigration have made skin color increasingly irrelevant to racial identity. If the goal is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs across racial groups and ethnicities, the characterization of populations will almost certainly require multiple descriptors and biomarkers, she said.

“It is very important to have many tools for characterizing patients by skin type,” Susan Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair for diversity, equity, and inclusion for the Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview at the meeting.

The reason is “there are limitations to all of them,” she said, noting also that the questions being asked about how and if skin color and race are relevant to therapeutic options differ by the question, such as innate response or access to care.

Dr. Taylor is part of a workshop that she said is evaluating a combination of instruments for characterizing skin color and race in ways relevant to the specific question being asked.

The solutions might differ. While simple clinical assessments involving skin color might be made with methods captured on a smartphone app, Dr. Taylor acknowledged that far more complex tools might be required to document the effect of racial or ethnic differences in drug efficacy and safety in a research setting.

Outside of a research setting, any tools that might be useful for assessing race as a variable must be practical, according to Dr. Harvey. She suggested that these must be time efficient, of reasonable cost, and most importantly, reliable.

Tools meeting these criteria do not currently exist, but Dr. Harvey said the work is underway. She expects a “top-down” collaborative approach to validate alternatives to the FST. If such tools can be developed with buy-in from the FDA, they might be particularly useful for translating trial data to patient care, she added.

Dr. Harvey reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oréal, and SkinCeuticals. Dr. Taylor, president-elect of the American Academy of Dermatology, reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five years have passed since the member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) gathered at the 72nd World Health Assembly and decided that September 17 should be recognized as World Patient Safety Day, acknowledging it as a global health priority.

WHO data indicate the following findings related to medical safety:

• One in 10 patients is harmed while receiving healthcare, and 3 million die as a result.
• More than half of these incidents could be prevented.
• Indirect costs could amount to several billion US dollars annually.

Given the magnitude of preventable harm related to medication use, in 2017, the WHO launched the third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm with the goal of reducing serious and preventable harm related to medication by 50%. In addition, considering the volume of medication packages prescribed in 2023 by physicians in Spain’s National Health System, it is necessary to understand the most common types of medication errors to provide an effective and efficient response.

According to Spain’s Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), the 10 types of medication errors detected in 2020 with the most serious consequences were the following:

• Errors due to omission or delay in medication.
• Administration of medication to the wrong patient.
• Errors related to allergies or known adverse effects of medications.
• Dosing errors in pediatric patients.
• Errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.
• Errors associated with the lack of use of smart infusion pumps.
• Errors due to accidental administration of neuromuscular blocking agents.
• Incorrect intravenous administration of oral liquid medications.
• Errors in medication reconciliation upon hospital admission and discharge.
• Errors due to patient misunderstandings regarding medication use.

I would like to focus on the fifth item, errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.

Medications with similar names or with similar labeling or packaging are known as “look alike–sound alike” medications. They are estimated to account for between 6.2% and 14.7% of all medication errors. Confusion can arise due to spelling and phonetic similarities.

As shown in bulletin no. 50 of the ISMP, difficulties in distinguishing different medications or different presentations of the same medication due to similar packaging and labeling have frequently been associated with reported incidents.

Most cases involve either medications marketed by the same laboratory with a design based on brand image or different medications marketed by different laboratories in screen-printed ampoules used in the same settings.

In 2020, the ISMP published 11 new cases of labeling or packaging that may promote errors on its website. It reported 49 incidents to the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices.

Shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have further contributed to these incidents, as healthcare facilities sometimes had to change the medications they usually acquired and purchase whatever was available, without being able to select products that would not be confused with existing medications in the facility.

The ISMP recommends the following general practices for healthcare institutions, professionals, and patients to prevent these errors:

• Develop short lists of easily confused medication names and distribute them among all healthcare professionals.
• Prioritize medication names by active ingredient instead of brand name.
• For similar names, highlight the differences in capital letters, eg, DOBUTamine, DOPamine.
• For similar active ingredients, use brand names.
• Avoid placing similar medications near each other.
• Prescribe all medications electronically to minimize the risk of selecting the wrong medication.
• Make manual prescriptions legible, with clearly written dosages and pharmaceutical forms.
• Encourage patients to actively participate in their treatment and consult a clinician if they have any questions about the medications they are receiving.
• Raise awareness among patients, family members, and caregivers about the issues caused by medication name confusion and inform them about how to avoid these errors.
• Instruct patients to focus on and always use the active ingredient name as an identifying element for the medications they are taking.
• Review treatments with patients to ensure they know the medications they are taking.
•  

Julia María Ruiz Redondo is the regional nursing advisor inspector of Spanish Society of General and Family Physicians of Castilla-La Mancha (SEMG-CLM), coordinator of the National Working Group on Public Health in the SEMG, and director of the international public health master’s degree at TECH Technological University. This article is the result of an editorial collaboration between the SEMG and Univadis, which you can access here. 

This story was translated from Univadis Spain, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five years have passed since the member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) gathered at the 72nd World Health Assembly and decided that September 17 should be recognized as World Patient Safety Day, acknowledging it as a global health priority.

WHO data indicate the following findings related to medical safety:

• One in 10 patients is harmed while receiving healthcare, and 3 million die as a result.
• More than half of these incidents could be prevented.
• Indirect costs could amount to several billion US dollars annually.

Given the magnitude of preventable harm related to medication use, in 2017, the WHO launched the third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm with the goal of reducing serious and preventable harm related to medication by 50%. In addition, considering the volume of medication packages prescribed in 2023 by physicians in Spain’s National Health System, it is necessary to understand the most common types of medication errors to provide an effective and efficient response.

According to Spain’s Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), the 10 types of medication errors detected in 2020 with the most serious consequences were the following:

• Errors due to omission or delay in medication.
• Administration of medication to the wrong patient.
• Errors related to allergies or known adverse effects of medications.
• Dosing errors in pediatric patients.
• Errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.
• Errors associated with the lack of use of smart infusion pumps.
• Errors due to accidental administration of neuromuscular blocking agents.
• Incorrect intravenous administration of oral liquid medications.
• Errors in medication reconciliation upon hospital admission and discharge.
• Errors due to patient misunderstandings regarding medication use.

I would like to focus on the fifth item, errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.

Medications with similar names or with similar labeling or packaging are known as “look alike–sound alike” medications. They are estimated to account for between 6.2% and 14.7% of all medication errors. Confusion can arise due to spelling and phonetic similarities.

As shown in bulletin no. 50 of the ISMP, difficulties in distinguishing different medications or different presentations of the same medication due to similar packaging and labeling have frequently been associated with reported incidents.

Most cases involve either medications marketed by the same laboratory with a design based on brand image or different medications marketed by different laboratories in screen-printed ampoules used in the same settings.

In 2020, the ISMP published 11 new cases of labeling or packaging that may promote errors on its website. It reported 49 incidents to the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices.

Shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have further contributed to these incidents, as healthcare facilities sometimes had to change the medications they usually acquired and purchase whatever was available, without being able to select products that would not be confused with existing medications in the facility.

The ISMP recommends the following general practices for healthcare institutions, professionals, and patients to prevent these errors:

• Develop short lists of easily confused medication names and distribute them among all healthcare professionals.
• Prioritize medication names by active ingredient instead of brand name.
• For similar names, highlight the differences in capital letters, eg, DOBUTamine, DOPamine.
• For similar active ingredients, use brand names.
• Avoid placing similar medications near each other.
• Prescribe all medications electronically to minimize the risk of selecting the wrong medication.
• Make manual prescriptions legible, with clearly written dosages and pharmaceutical forms.
• Encourage patients to actively participate in their treatment and consult a clinician if they have any questions about the medications they are receiving.
• Raise awareness among patients, family members, and caregivers about the issues caused by medication name confusion and inform them about how to avoid these errors.
• Instruct patients to focus on and always use the active ingredient name as an identifying element for the medications they are taking.
• Review treatments with patients to ensure they know the medications they are taking.
•  

Julia María Ruiz Redondo is the regional nursing advisor inspector of Spanish Society of General and Family Physicians of Castilla-La Mancha (SEMG-CLM), coordinator of the National Working Group on Public Health in the SEMG, and director of the international public health master’s degree at TECH Technological University. This article is the result of an editorial collaboration between the SEMG and Univadis, which you can access here. 

This story was translated from Univadis Spain, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five years have passed since the member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) gathered at the 72nd World Health Assembly and decided that September 17 should be recognized as World Patient Safety Day, acknowledging it as a global health priority.

WHO data indicate the following findings related to medical safety:

• One in 10 patients is harmed while receiving healthcare, and 3 million die as a result.
• More than half of these incidents could be prevented.
• Indirect costs could amount to several billion US dollars annually.

Given the magnitude of preventable harm related to medication use, in 2017, the WHO launched the third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm with the goal of reducing serious and preventable harm related to medication by 50%. In addition, considering the volume of medication packages prescribed in 2023 by physicians in Spain’s National Health System, it is necessary to understand the most common types of medication errors to provide an effective and efficient response.

According to Spain’s Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), the 10 types of medication errors detected in 2020 with the most serious consequences were the following:

• Errors due to omission or delay in medication.
• Administration of medication to the wrong patient.
• Errors related to allergies or known adverse effects of medications.
• Dosing errors in pediatric patients.
• Errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.
• Errors associated with the lack of use of smart infusion pumps.
• Errors due to accidental administration of neuromuscular blocking agents.
• Incorrect intravenous administration of oral liquid medications.
• Errors in medication reconciliation upon hospital admission and discharge.
• Errors due to patient misunderstandings regarding medication use.

I would like to focus on the fifth item, errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.

Medications with similar names or with similar labeling or packaging are known as “look alike–sound alike” medications. They are estimated to account for between 6.2% and 14.7% of all medication errors. Confusion can arise due to spelling and phonetic similarities.

As shown in bulletin no. 50 of the ISMP, difficulties in distinguishing different medications or different presentations of the same medication due to similar packaging and labeling have frequently been associated with reported incidents.

Most cases involve either medications marketed by the same laboratory with a design based on brand image or different medications marketed by different laboratories in screen-printed ampoules used in the same settings.

In 2020, the ISMP published 11 new cases of labeling or packaging that may promote errors on its website. It reported 49 incidents to the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices.

Shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have further contributed to these incidents, as healthcare facilities sometimes had to change the medications they usually acquired and purchase whatever was available, without being able to select products that would not be confused with existing medications in the facility.

The ISMP recommends the following general practices for healthcare institutions, professionals, and patients to prevent these errors:

• Develop short lists of easily confused medication names and distribute them among all healthcare professionals.
• Prioritize medication names by active ingredient instead of brand name.
• For similar names, highlight the differences in capital letters, eg, DOBUTamine, DOPamine.
• For similar active ingredients, use brand names.
• Avoid placing similar medications near each other.
• Prescribe all medications electronically to minimize the risk of selecting the wrong medication.
• Make manual prescriptions legible, with clearly written dosages and pharmaceutical forms.
• Encourage patients to actively participate in their treatment and consult a clinician if they have any questions about the medications they are receiving.
• Raise awareness among patients, family members, and caregivers about the issues caused by medication name confusion and inform them about how to avoid these errors.
• Instruct patients to focus on and always use the active ingredient name as an identifying element for the medications they are taking.
• Review treatments with patients to ensure they know the medications they are taking.
•  

Julia María Ruiz Redondo is the regional nursing advisor inspector of Spanish Society of General and Family Physicians of Castilla-La Mancha (SEMG-CLM), coordinator of the National Working Group on Public Health in the SEMG, and director of the international public health master’s degree at TECH Technological University. This article is the result of an editorial collaboration between the SEMG and Univadis, which you can access here. 

This story was translated from Univadis Spain, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I’d like to pose a question: When should doctors retire? When, as practicing physicians or surgeons, do we become too old to deliver competent service? 

You will be amazed to hear, those of you who have listened to my videos before — and although it is a matter of public knowledge — that I’m 68. I know it’s impossible to imagine, due to this youthful appearance, visage, and so on, but I am. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years; therefore, I need to think a little about retirement. 

There are two elements of this for me. I’m a university professor, and in Oxford we did vote, as a democracy of scholars, to have a mandatory retirement age around 68. This is so that we can bring new blood forward so that we can create the space to promote new professors, to bring youngsters in to make new ideas, and to get rid of us fusty old lot. 

The other argument would be, of course, that we are wise, we’re experienced, we are world-weary, and we’re successful — otherwise, we wouldn’t have lasted as academics as long. Nevertheless, we voted to do that. 

It’s possible to have a discussion with the university to extend this, and for those of us who are clinical academics, I have an honorary appointment as a consultant cancer physician in the hospital and my university professorial appointment, too.

I can extend it probably until I’m about 70. It feels like a nice, round number at which to retire — somewhat arbitrarily, one would admit. But does that feel right? 

In the United States, more than 25% of the physician workforce is over the age of 65. There are many studies showing that there is a 20% cognitive decline for most individuals between the ages of 45 and 65.

Are we as capable as an elderly workforce as once we were? Clearly, it’s hardly individualistic. It depends on each of our own health status, where we started from, and so on, but are there any general rules that we can apply? I think these are starting to creep in around the sense of revalidation.

In the United Kingdom, we have a General Medical Council (GMC). I need to have a license to practice from the GMC and a sense of fitness to practice. I have annual appraisals within the hospital system, in which I explore delivery of care, how I’m doing as a mentor, am I reaching the milestones I’ve set in terms of academic achievements, and so on.

This is a peer-to-peer process. We have senior physicians — people like myself — who act as appraisers to support our colleagues and to maintain that sense of fitness to practice. Every 5 years, I’m revalidated by the GMC. They take account of the annual appraisals and a report made by the senior physician within my hospital network who’s a so-called designated person.

These two elements come together with patient feedback, with 360-degree feedback from colleagues, and so on. This is quite a firmly regulated system that I think works. Our mandatory retirement age of 65 has gone. That was phased out by the government. In fact, our NHS is making an effort to retain older elders in the workforce.

They see the benefits of mentorship, experience, leadership, and networks. At a time when the majority of NHS are actively seeking to retire when 65, the NHS is trying to retain and pull back those of us who have been around for that wee bit longer and who still feel committed to doing it. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. There’s variation from country to country. I know that, in Australia, they’re talking about annual appraisals of doctors over the age of 70. I’d be very interested to hear what you think is likely to happen in the United States. 

I think our system works pretty well, as long as you’re within the NHS and hospital system. If you wanted to still practice, but practice privately, you would still have to find somebody who’d be prepared to conduct appraisals and so on outside of the NHS. It’s an interesting area. 

For myself, I still feel competent. Patients seem to like me. That’s an objective assessment by this 360-degree thing in which patients reflected very positively, indeed, in my approach to the delivery of the care and so on, as did colleagues. I’m still publishing, I go to meetings, I cheer things, bits and bobs. I’d say I’m a wee bit unusual in terms of still having a strong academic profile in doing stuff.

It’s an interesting question. Richard Doll, one of the world’s great epidemiologists who, of course, was the dominant discoverer of the link between smoking and lung cancer, was attending seminars, sitting in the front row, and coming into university 3 days a week at age 90, continuing to be contributory with his extraordinarily sharp intellect and vast, vast experience.

When I think of experience, all young cancer doctors are now immunologists. When I was a young doctor, I was a clinical pharmacologist. There are many lessons and tricks that I learned which I do need to pass on to the younger generation of today. What do you think? Should there be a mandatory retirement age? How do we best measure, assess, and revalidate elderly physicians and surgeons? How can we continue to contribute to those who choose to do so? For the time being, as always, thanks for listening.
 

Dr. Kerr is professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford, and professor of cancer medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom. He has disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (Board of Directors); Afrox (charity; Trustee); GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (Consultant), Genomic Health; Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I’d like to pose a question: When should doctors retire? When, as practicing physicians or surgeons, do we become too old to deliver competent service? 

You will be amazed to hear, those of you who have listened to my videos before — and although it is a matter of public knowledge — that I’m 68. I know it’s impossible to imagine, due to this youthful appearance, visage, and so on, but I am. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years; therefore, I need to think a little about retirement. 

There are two elements of this for me. I’m a university professor, and in Oxford we did vote, as a democracy of scholars, to have a mandatory retirement age around 68. This is so that we can bring new blood forward so that we can create the space to promote new professors, to bring youngsters in to make new ideas, and to get rid of us fusty old lot. 

The other argument would be, of course, that we are wise, we’re experienced, we are world-weary, and we’re successful — otherwise, we wouldn’t have lasted as academics as long. Nevertheless, we voted to do that. 

It’s possible to have a discussion with the university to extend this, and for those of us who are clinical academics, I have an honorary appointment as a consultant cancer physician in the hospital and my university professorial appointment, too.

I can extend it probably until I’m about 70. It feels like a nice, round number at which to retire — somewhat arbitrarily, one would admit. But does that feel right? 

In the United States, more than 25% of the physician workforce is over the age of 65. There are many studies showing that there is a 20% cognitive decline for most individuals between the ages of 45 and 65.

Are we as capable as an elderly workforce as once we were? Clearly, it’s hardly individualistic. It depends on each of our own health status, where we started from, and so on, but are there any general rules that we can apply? I think these are starting to creep in around the sense of revalidation.

In the United Kingdom, we have a General Medical Council (GMC). I need to have a license to practice from the GMC and a sense of fitness to practice. I have annual appraisals within the hospital system, in which I explore delivery of care, how I’m doing as a mentor, am I reaching the milestones I’ve set in terms of academic achievements, and so on.

This is a peer-to-peer process. We have senior physicians — people like myself — who act as appraisers to support our colleagues and to maintain that sense of fitness to practice. Every 5 years, I’m revalidated by the GMC. They take account of the annual appraisals and a report made by the senior physician within my hospital network who’s a so-called designated person.

These two elements come together with patient feedback, with 360-degree feedback from colleagues, and so on. This is quite a firmly regulated system that I think works. Our mandatory retirement age of 65 has gone. That was phased out by the government. In fact, our NHS is making an effort to retain older elders in the workforce.

They see the benefits of mentorship, experience, leadership, and networks. At a time when the majority of NHS are actively seeking to retire when 65, the NHS is trying to retain and pull back those of us who have been around for that wee bit longer and who still feel committed to doing it. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. There’s variation from country to country. I know that, in Australia, they’re talking about annual appraisals of doctors over the age of 70. I’d be very interested to hear what you think is likely to happen in the United States. 

I think our system works pretty well, as long as you’re within the NHS and hospital system. If you wanted to still practice, but practice privately, you would still have to find somebody who’d be prepared to conduct appraisals and so on outside of the NHS. It’s an interesting area. 

For myself, I still feel competent. Patients seem to like me. That’s an objective assessment by this 360-degree thing in which patients reflected very positively, indeed, in my approach to the delivery of the care and so on, as did colleagues. I’m still publishing, I go to meetings, I cheer things, bits and bobs. I’d say I’m a wee bit unusual in terms of still having a strong academic profile in doing stuff.

It’s an interesting question. Richard Doll, one of the world’s great epidemiologists who, of course, was the dominant discoverer of the link between smoking and lung cancer, was attending seminars, sitting in the front row, and coming into university 3 days a week at age 90, continuing to be contributory with his extraordinarily sharp intellect and vast, vast experience.

When I think of experience, all young cancer doctors are now immunologists. When I was a young doctor, I was a clinical pharmacologist. There are many lessons and tricks that I learned which I do need to pass on to the younger generation of today. What do you think? Should there be a mandatory retirement age? How do we best measure, assess, and revalidate elderly physicians and surgeons? How can we continue to contribute to those who choose to do so? For the time being, as always, thanks for listening.
 

Dr. Kerr is professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford, and professor of cancer medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom. He has disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (Board of Directors); Afrox (charity; Trustee); GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (Consultant), Genomic Health; Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I’d like to pose a question: When should doctors retire? When, as practicing physicians or surgeons, do we become too old to deliver competent service? 

You will be amazed to hear, those of you who have listened to my videos before — and although it is a matter of public knowledge — that I’m 68. I know it’s impossible to imagine, due to this youthful appearance, visage, and so on, but I am. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years; therefore, I need to think a little about retirement. 

There are two elements of this for me. I’m a university professor, and in Oxford we did vote, as a democracy of scholars, to have a mandatory retirement age around 68. This is so that we can bring new blood forward so that we can create the space to promote new professors, to bring youngsters in to make new ideas, and to get rid of us fusty old lot. 

The other argument would be, of course, that we are wise, we’re experienced, we are world-weary, and we’re successful — otherwise, we wouldn’t have lasted as academics as long. Nevertheless, we voted to do that. 

It’s possible to have a discussion with the university to extend this, and for those of us who are clinical academics, I have an honorary appointment as a consultant cancer physician in the hospital and my university professorial appointment, too.

I can extend it probably until I’m about 70. It feels like a nice, round number at which to retire — somewhat arbitrarily, one would admit. But does that feel right? 

In the United States, more than 25% of the physician workforce is over the age of 65. There are many studies showing that there is a 20% cognitive decline for most individuals between the ages of 45 and 65.

Are we as capable as an elderly workforce as once we were? Clearly, it’s hardly individualistic. It depends on each of our own health status, where we started from, and so on, but are there any general rules that we can apply? I think these are starting to creep in around the sense of revalidation.

In the United Kingdom, we have a General Medical Council (GMC). I need to have a license to practice from the GMC and a sense of fitness to practice. I have annual appraisals within the hospital system, in which I explore delivery of care, how I’m doing as a mentor, am I reaching the milestones I’ve set in terms of academic achievements, and so on.

This is a peer-to-peer process. We have senior physicians — people like myself — who act as appraisers to support our colleagues and to maintain that sense of fitness to practice. Every 5 years, I’m revalidated by the GMC. They take account of the annual appraisals and a report made by the senior physician within my hospital network who’s a so-called designated person.

These two elements come together with patient feedback, with 360-degree feedback from colleagues, and so on. This is quite a firmly regulated system that I think works. Our mandatory retirement age of 65 has gone. That was phased out by the government. In fact, our NHS is making an effort to retain older elders in the workforce.

They see the benefits of mentorship, experience, leadership, and networks. At a time when the majority of NHS are actively seeking to retire when 65, the NHS is trying to retain and pull back those of us who have been around for that wee bit longer and who still feel committed to doing it. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. There’s variation from country to country. I know that, in Australia, they’re talking about annual appraisals of doctors over the age of 70. I’d be very interested to hear what you think is likely to happen in the United States. 

I think our system works pretty well, as long as you’re within the NHS and hospital system. If you wanted to still practice, but practice privately, you would still have to find somebody who’d be prepared to conduct appraisals and so on outside of the NHS. It’s an interesting area. 

For myself, I still feel competent. Patients seem to like me. That’s an objective assessment by this 360-degree thing in which patients reflected very positively, indeed, in my approach to the delivery of the care and so on, as did colleagues. I’m still publishing, I go to meetings, I cheer things, bits and bobs. I’d say I’m a wee bit unusual in terms of still having a strong academic profile in doing stuff.

It’s an interesting question. Richard Doll, one of the world’s great epidemiologists who, of course, was the dominant discoverer of the link between smoking and lung cancer, was attending seminars, sitting in the front row, and coming into university 3 days a week at age 90, continuing to be contributory with his extraordinarily sharp intellect and vast, vast experience.

When I think of experience, all young cancer doctors are now immunologists. When I was a young doctor, I was a clinical pharmacologist. There are many lessons and tricks that I learned which I do need to pass on to the younger generation of today. What do you think? Should there be a mandatory retirement age? How do we best measure, assess, and revalidate elderly physicians and surgeons? How can we continue to contribute to those who choose to do so? For the time being, as always, thanks for listening.
 

Dr. Kerr is professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford, and professor of cancer medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom. He has disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (Board of Directors); Afrox (charity; Trustee); GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (Consultant), Genomic Health; Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID — A new consensus statement in development will aim to advise on best practices for navigating the transition of youth with diabetes from pediatric to adult diabetes care, despite limited data.

Expected to be released in early 2025, the statement will be a joint effort of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), the American Diabetes Association (ADA), and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). It will provide guidance on advance transition planning, the care transfer itself, and follow-up. Writing panel members presented an update on the statement’s development on September 13, 2024, at EASD’s annual meeting.

The care transition period is critical because “adolescents and young adults are the least likely of all age groups to achieve glycemic targets for a variety of physiological and psychosocial reasons ... Up to 60% of these individuals don’t transfer successfully from pediatric to adult care, with declines in attendance, adverse medical outcomes, and mental health challenges,” Frank J. Snoek, PhD, emeritus professor of medical psychology at Amsterdam University Medical College, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said in introductory remarks at the EASD session.

Session chair Carine De Beaufort, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist in Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, told this news organization, “We know it’s a continuing process, which is extremely important for young people to move into the world. The last formal recommendations were published in 2011, so we thought it was time for an update. What we realized in doing a systematic review and scoping review is that there are a lot of suggestions and ideas not really associated with robust data, and it’s not so easy to get good outcome indicators.”

The final statement will provide clinical guidance but, at the same time, “will be very transparent where more work is needed,” she said.

Sarah Lyons, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, broadly outlined the document. Pre-transition planning will include readiness assessments for transfer from pediatric to adult care. The transfer phase will include measures to prevent gaps in care. And the post-transition phase will cover incorporation into adult care, with follow-up of the individual’s progress for a period.

Across the three stages, the document is expected to recommend a multidisciplinary team approach including psychological support, education and assessment, family and peer support, and care coordination. It will also address practical considerations for patients and professionals including costs and insurance.

It will build upon previous guidelines, including those of ADA and general guidance on transition from pediatric to adult healthcare from the American Academy of Pediatrics. “Ideally, this process will be continuous, comprehensive, coordinated, individualized, and developmentally appropriate,” Dr. Lyons said.
 

‘It Shouldn’t Be Just One Conversation ... It Needs to Be a Process’

Asked to comment, ISPAD president David Maahs, MD, the Lucile Salter Packard Professor of Pediatrics and Division Chief of Pediatric Endocrinology at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, told this news organization, “It shouldn’t be just one conversation and one visit. It needs to be a process where you talk about the need to transition to adult endocrine care and prepare the person with diabetes and their family for that transition. One of the challenges is if they don’t make it to that first appointment and you assume that they did, and then that’s one place where there can be a gap that people fall through the two systems.”

Dr. Maahs added, “Another issue that’s a big problem in the United States is that children lose their parents’ insurance at 26 ... Some become uninsured after that, or their insurance plan isn’t accepted by the adult provider.”
 

‘There Does Not Appear to Be Sufficient Data’

Steven James, PhD, RN, of the University of the Sunshine Coast, Brisbane, Australia, presented the limited data upon which the statement will be based. A systematic literature review yielded just 26 intervention trials looking at care transition for youth with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, including seven clinical trials with only one randomized.

In that trial, in which 205 youth aged 17-20 years were randomized to a structured 18-month transition program with a transition coordinator, the intervention was associated with increased clinic attendance, improved satisfaction with care, and decreased diabetes-related distress, but the benefits weren’t maintained 12 months after completion of the intervention.

The other trials produced mixed results in terms of metabolic outcomes, with improvements in A1c and reductions in diabetic ketoacidosis and hospitalizations seen in some but not others. Healthcare outcomes and utilization, psychosocial outcomes, transition-related knowledge, self-care, and care satisfaction were only occasionally assessed, Dr. James noted.

“The field is lacking empirically supported interventions that can improve patient physiologic and psychologic outcomes, prevent poor clinic attendance, and improve patient satisfaction in medical care ... There still does not appear to be sufficient data related to the impact of transition readiness or transfer-to-adult care programs.”
 

‘Quite a Lot of Variation in Practices Worldwide’

Dr. James also presented results from two online surveys undertaken by the document writing panel. One recently published survey in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice examined healthcare professionals’ experiences and perceptions around diabetes care transitions. Of 372 respondents (75% physicians) from around the world — including a third in low-middle-income countries — fewer than half reported using transition readiness checklists (32.8%), provided written transition information (29.6%), or had a dedicated staff member to aid in the process (23.7%).

Similarly, few involved a psychologist (25.3%) or had a structured transition education program (22.6%). Even in high-income countries, fewer than half reported using these measures. Overall, a majority (91.9%) reported barriers to offering patients a positive transition experience.

“This shows to me that there is quite a lot of variation in practices worldwide ... There is a pressing need for an international consensus transition guideline,” Dr. James said.

Among the respondents’ beliefs, 53.8% thought that discussions about transitioning should be initiated at ages 15-17 years, while 27.8% thought 12-14 years was more appropriate. Large majorities favored use of a transition readiness checklist (93.6%), combined transition clinics (80.6%), having a dedicated transition coordinator/staff member available (85.8%), and involving a psychologist in the transition process (80.6%).

A similar survey of patients and carers will be published soon and will be included in the new statement’s evidence base, Dr. James said.

Dr. Maahs said that endorsement of the upcoming guidance from three different medical societies should help raise the profile of the issue. “Hopefully three professional organizations are able to speak with a united and louder voice than if it was just one group or one set of authors. I think this consensus statement can raise awareness, improve care, and help advocate for better care.”

Dr. De Beaufort, Dr. James, and Dr. Lyons had no disclosures. Dr. Snoek is an adviser/speaker for Abbott, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi and receives funding from Breakthrough T1D, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Maahs has had research support from the National Institutes of Health, Breakthrough T1D, National Science Foundation, and the Helmsley Charitable Trust, and his institution has had research support from Medtronic, Dexcom, Insulet, Bigfoot Biomedical, Tandem, and Roche. He has consulted for Abbott, Aditxt, the Helmsley Charitable Trust, LifeScan, MannKind, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Insulet, Dompe, BioSpex, Provention Bio, Kriya, Enable Biosciences, and Bayer.
 

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

MADRID — A new consensus statement in development will aim to advise on best practices for navigating the transition of youth with diabetes from pediatric to adult diabetes care, despite limited data.

Expected to be released in early 2025, the statement will be a joint effort of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), the American Diabetes Association (ADA), and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). It will provide guidance on advance transition planning, the care transfer itself, and follow-up. Writing panel members presented an update on the statement’s development on September 13, 2024, at EASD’s annual meeting.

The care transition period is critical because “adolescents and young adults are the least likely of all age groups to achieve glycemic targets for a variety of physiological and psychosocial reasons ... Up to 60% of these individuals don’t transfer successfully from pediatric to adult care, with declines in attendance, adverse medical outcomes, and mental health challenges,” Frank J. Snoek, PhD, emeritus professor of medical psychology at Amsterdam University Medical College, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said in introductory remarks at the EASD session.

Session chair Carine De Beaufort, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist in Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, told this news organization, “We know it’s a continuing process, which is extremely important for young people to move into the world. The last formal recommendations were published in 2011, so we thought it was time for an update. What we realized in doing a systematic review and scoping review is that there are a lot of suggestions and ideas not really associated with robust data, and it’s not so easy to get good outcome indicators.”

The final statement will provide clinical guidance but, at the same time, “will be very transparent where more work is needed,” she said.

Sarah Lyons, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, broadly outlined the document. Pre-transition planning will include readiness assessments for transfer from pediatric to adult care. The transfer phase will include measures to prevent gaps in care. And the post-transition phase will cover incorporation into adult care, with follow-up of the individual’s progress for a period.

Across the three stages, the document is expected to recommend a multidisciplinary team approach including psychological support, education and assessment, family and peer support, and care coordination. It will also address practical considerations for patients and professionals including costs and insurance.

It will build upon previous guidelines, including those of ADA and general guidance on transition from pediatric to adult healthcare from the American Academy of Pediatrics. “Ideally, this process will be continuous, comprehensive, coordinated, individualized, and developmentally appropriate,” Dr. Lyons said.
 

‘It Shouldn’t Be Just One Conversation ... It Needs to Be a Process’

Asked to comment, ISPAD president David Maahs, MD, the Lucile Salter Packard Professor of Pediatrics and Division Chief of Pediatric Endocrinology at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, told this news organization, “It shouldn’t be just one conversation and one visit. It needs to be a process where you talk about the need to transition to adult endocrine care and prepare the person with diabetes and their family for that transition. One of the challenges is if they don’t make it to that first appointment and you assume that they did, and then that’s one place where there can be a gap that people fall through the two systems.”

Dr. Maahs added, “Another issue that’s a big problem in the United States is that children lose their parents’ insurance at 26 ... Some become uninsured after that, or their insurance plan isn’t accepted by the adult provider.”
 

‘There Does Not Appear to Be Sufficient Data’

Steven James, PhD, RN, of the University of the Sunshine Coast, Brisbane, Australia, presented the limited data upon which the statement will be based. A systematic literature review yielded just 26 intervention trials looking at care transition for youth with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, including seven clinical trials with only one randomized.

In that trial, in which 205 youth aged 17-20 years were randomized to a structured 18-month transition program with a transition coordinator, the intervention was associated with increased clinic attendance, improved satisfaction with care, and decreased diabetes-related distress, but the benefits weren’t maintained 12 months after completion of the intervention.

The other trials produced mixed results in terms of metabolic outcomes, with improvements in A1c and reductions in diabetic ketoacidosis and hospitalizations seen in some but not others. Healthcare outcomes and utilization, psychosocial outcomes, transition-related knowledge, self-care, and care satisfaction were only occasionally assessed, Dr. James noted.

“The field is lacking empirically supported interventions that can improve patient physiologic and psychologic outcomes, prevent poor clinic attendance, and improve patient satisfaction in medical care ... There still does not appear to be sufficient data related to the impact of transition readiness or transfer-to-adult care programs.”
 

‘Quite a Lot of Variation in Practices Worldwide’

Dr. James also presented results from two online surveys undertaken by the document writing panel. One recently published survey in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice examined healthcare professionals’ experiences and perceptions around diabetes care transitions. Of 372 respondents (75% physicians) from around the world — including a third in low-middle-income countries — fewer than half reported using transition readiness checklists (32.8%), provided written transition information (29.6%), or had a dedicated staff member to aid in the process (23.7%).

Similarly, few involved a psychologist (25.3%) or had a structured transition education program (22.6%). Even in high-income countries, fewer than half reported using these measures. Overall, a majority (91.9%) reported barriers to offering patients a positive transition experience.

“This shows to me that there is quite a lot of variation in practices worldwide ... There is a pressing need for an international consensus transition guideline,” Dr. James said.

Among the respondents’ beliefs, 53.8% thought that discussions about transitioning should be initiated at ages 15-17 years, while 27.8% thought 12-14 years was more appropriate. Large majorities favored use of a transition readiness checklist (93.6%), combined transition clinics (80.6%), having a dedicated transition coordinator/staff member available (85.8%), and involving a psychologist in the transition process (80.6%).

A similar survey of patients and carers will be published soon and will be included in the new statement’s evidence base, Dr. James said.

Dr. Maahs said that endorsement of the upcoming guidance from three different medical societies should help raise the profile of the issue. “Hopefully three professional organizations are able to speak with a united and louder voice than if it was just one group or one set of authors. I think this consensus statement can raise awareness, improve care, and help advocate for better care.”

Dr. De Beaufort, Dr. James, and Dr. Lyons had no disclosures. Dr. Snoek is an adviser/speaker for Abbott, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi and receives funding from Breakthrough T1D, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Maahs has had research support from the National Institutes of Health, Breakthrough T1D, National Science Foundation, and the Helmsley Charitable Trust, and his institution has had research support from Medtronic, Dexcom, Insulet, Bigfoot Biomedical, Tandem, and Roche. He has consulted for Abbott, Aditxt, the Helmsley Charitable Trust, LifeScan, MannKind, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Insulet, Dompe, BioSpex, Provention Bio, Kriya, Enable Biosciences, and Bayer.
 

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

MADRID — A new consensus statement in development will aim to advise on best practices for navigating the transition of youth with diabetes from pediatric to adult diabetes care, despite limited data.

Expected to be released in early 2025, the statement will be a joint effort of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), the American Diabetes Association (ADA), and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). It will provide guidance on advance transition planning, the care transfer itself, and follow-up. Writing panel members presented an update on the statement’s development on September 13, 2024, at EASD’s annual meeting.

The care transition period is critical because “adolescents and young adults are the least likely of all age groups to achieve glycemic targets for a variety of physiological and psychosocial reasons ... Up to 60% of these individuals don’t transfer successfully from pediatric to adult care, with declines in attendance, adverse medical outcomes, and mental health challenges,” Frank J. Snoek, PhD, emeritus professor of medical psychology at Amsterdam University Medical College, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said in introductory remarks at the EASD session.

Session chair Carine De Beaufort, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist in Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, told this news organization, “We know it’s a continuing process, which is extremely important for young people to move into the world. The last formal recommendations were published in 2011, so we thought it was time for an update. What we realized in doing a systematic review and scoping review is that there are a lot of suggestions and ideas not really associated with robust data, and it’s not so easy to get good outcome indicators.”

The final statement will provide clinical guidance but, at the same time, “will be very transparent where more work is needed,” she said.

Sarah Lyons, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, broadly outlined the document. Pre-transition planning will include readiness assessments for transfer from pediatric to adult care. The transfer phase will include measures to prevent gaps in care. And the post-transition phase will cover incorporation into adult care, with follow-up of the individual’s progress for a period.

Across the three stages, the document is expected to recommend a multidisciplinary team approach including psychological support, education and assessment, family and peer support, and care coordination. It will also address practical considerations for patients and professionals including costs and insurance.

It will build upon previous guidelines, including those of ADA and general guidance on transition from pediatric to adult healthcare from the American Academy of Pediatrics. “Ideally, this process will be continuous, comprehensive, coordinated, individualized, and developmentally appropriate,” Dr. Lyons said.
 

‘It Shouldn’t Be Just One Conversation ... It Needs to Be a Process’

Asked to comment, ISPAD president David Maahs, MD, the Lucile Salter Packard Professor of Pediatrics and Division Chief of Pediatric Endocrinology at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, told this news organization, “It shouldn’t be just one conversation and one visit. It needs to be a process where you talk about the need to transition to adult endocrine care and prepare the person with diabetes and their family for that transition. One of the challenges is if they don’t make it to that first appointment and you assume that they did, and then that’s one place where there can be a gap that people fall through the two systems.”

Dr. Maahs added, “Another issue that’s a big problem in the United States is that children lose their parents’ insurance at 26 ... Some become uninsured after that, or their insurance plan isn’t accepted by the adult provider.”
 

‘There Does Not Appear to Be Sufficient Data’

Steven James, PhD, RN, of the University of the Sunshine Coast, Brisbane, Australia, presented the limited data upon which the statement will be based. A systematic literature review yielded just 26 intervention trials looking at care transition for youth with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, including seven clinical trials with only one randomized.

In that trial, in which 205 youth aged 17-20 years were randomized to a structured 18-month transition program with a transition coordinator, the intervention was associated with increased clinic attendance, improved satisfaction with care, and decreased diabetes-related distress, but the benefits weren’t maintained 12 months after completion of the intervention.

The other trials produced mixed results in terms of metabolic outcomes, with improvements in A1c and reductions in diabetic ketoacidosis and hospitalizations seen in some but not others. Healthcare outcomes and utilization, psychosocial outcomes, transition-related knowledge, self-care, and care satisfaction were only occasionally assessed, Dr. James noted.

“The field is lacking empirically supported interventions that can improve patient physiologic and psychologic outcomes, prevent poor clinic attendance, and improve patient satisfaction in medical care ... There still does not appear to be sufficient data related to the impact of transition readiness or transfer-to-adult care programs.”
 

‘Quite a Lot of Variation in Practices Worldwide’

Dr. James also presented results from two online surveys undertaken by the document writing panel. One recently published survey in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice examined healthcare professionals’ experiences and perceptions around diabetes care transitions. Of 372 respondents (75% physicians) from around the world — including a third in low-middle-income countries — fewer than half reported using transition readiness checklists (32.8%), provided written transition information (29.6%), or had a dedicated staff member to aid in the process (23.7%).

Similarly, few involved a psychologist (25.3%) or had a structured transition education program (22.6%). Even in high-income countries, fewer than half reported using these measures. Overall, a majority (91.9%) reported barriers to offering patients a positive transition experience.

“This shows to me that there is quite a lot of variation in practices worldwide ... There is a pressing need for an international consensus transition guideline,” Dr. James said.

Among the respondents’ beliefs, 53.8% thought that discussions about transitioning should be initiated at ages 15-17 years, while 27.8% thought 12-14 years was more appropriate. Large majorities favored use of a transition readiness checklist (93.6%), combined transition clinics (80.6%), having a dedicated transition coordinator/staff member available (85.8%), and involving a psychologist in the transition process (80.6%).

A similar survey of patients and carers will be published soon and will be included in the new statement’s evidence base, Dr. James said.

Dr. Maahs said that endorsement of the upcoming guidance from three different medical societies should help raise the profile of the issue. “Hopefully three professional organizations are able to speak with a united and louder voice than if it was just one group or one set of authors. I think this consensus statement can raise awareness, improve care, and help advocate for better care.”

Dr. De Beaufort, Dr. James, and Dr. Lyons had no disclosures. Dr. Snoek is an adviser/speaker for Abbott, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi and receives funding from Breakthrough T1D, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Maahs has had research support from the National Institutes of Health, Breakthrough T1D, National Science Foundation, and the Helmsley Charitable Trust, and his institution has had research support from Medtronic, Dexcom, Insulet, Bigfoot Biomedical, Tandem, and Roche. He has consulted for Abbott, Aditxt, the Helmsley Charitable Trust, LifeScan, MannKind, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Insulet, Dompe, BioSpex, Provention Bio, Kriya, Enable Biosciences, and Bayer.
 

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

TOPLINE:

In a consensus survey study, participants with atopic dermatitis (AD) agreed on a patient-centered definition of AD flare, which most agreed would help when communicating with their healthcare providers (HCPs).

METHODOLOGY:

• To develop a patient-centered definition of AD flare, researchers used a modified eDelphi method, which involved a focus group and survey to reach consensus on key aspects of an AD flare.
• The focus group included 26 US adults aged ≥ 18 years with AD who had experienced a flare within the past 12 months. The survey was conducted among 631 adults with AD to validate the identified concepts and assess their agreement with the consensus statements.
• Participants rated 98 statements on a scale from 1 to 9, with consensus defined as at least 70% rating a statement as 7-9 and less than 15% rating it as 1-3.
• In focus groups, participants identified six key concepts for a patient-centered definition of flare, including changes from baseline, mental and emotional consequences, and physical changes in skin.

TAKEAWAY:

• The focus group reached consensus on 15 statements, and survey participants reached consensus on 12 of those statements defining an AD flare, with the highest agreement on symptoms taking more attention than normal, worsening of physical symptoms associated with AD, and worsening of itching associated with AD.
• The statement “acute worsening of symptoms of AD” was ranked as the most important, while “a worsening of physical symptoms” was ranked the least important.
• Most participants (79.7%) reported that prior definitions of AD flare did not resonate with them.
• More than half (52.9%) agreed with their HCP on what constitutes an AD flare, and the majority (77.6%) indicated that a patient-centered definition would be useful for communication with their HCP and for self-management.

IN PRACTICE:

“In this consensus survey study, we identified statements that are critical to the definition of an AD flare from the patient perspective,” the authors wrote. These findings, they added, “may be useful in clinical practice to improve communication between patients and HCPs who may be using the term flare without a mutual understanding of its meaning” and “may also be applied to the development of outcome measures focused on AD flares, which is an important treatment outcome for people with AD.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron M. Drucker, MD, ScM, of the Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and was published online September 11 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Participants had higher-than-average knowledge about AD, and the study’s findings may not be generalizable to all people with AD. The study included a higher proportion of moderate to severe AD cases than the general population, which may introduce responder bias. The findings may not be applicable to children, caregivers, or individuals in other countries.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by a grant to the National Eczema Association from Pfizer. Dr. Drucker disclosed received compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology, American Academy of Dermatology, and Canadian Dermatology Today, and consultant fees from the National Eczema Association and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Another author reported receiving personal fees from pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In a consensus survey study, participants with atopic dermatitis (AD) agreed on a patient-centered definition of AD flare, which most agreed would help when communicating with their healthcare providers (HCPs).

METHODOLOGY:

• To develop a patient-centered definition of AD flare, researchers used a modified eDelphi method, which involved a focus group and survey to reach consensus on key aspects of an AD flare.
• The focus group included 26 US adults aged ≥ 18 years with AD who had experienced a flare within the past 12 months. The survey was conducted among 631 adults with AD to validate the identified concepts and assess their agreement with the consensus statements.
• Participants rated 98 statements on a scale from 1 to 9, with consensus defined as at least 70% rating a statement as 7-9 and less than 15% rating it as 1-3.
• In focus groups, participants identified six key concepts for a patient-centered definition of flare, including changes from baseline, mental and emotional consequences, and physical changes in skin.

TAKEAWAY:

• The focus group reached consensus on 15 statements, and survey participants reached consensus on 12 of those statements defining an AD flare, with the highest agreement on symptoms taking more attention than normal, worsening of physical symptoms associated with AD, and worsening of itching associated with AD.
• The statement “acute worsening of symptoms of AD” was ranked as the most important, while “a worsening of physical symptoms” was ranked the least important.
• Most participants (79.7%) reported that prior definitions of AD flare did not resonate with them.
• More than half (52.9%) agreed with their HCP on what constitutes an AD flare, and the majority (77.6%) indicated that a patient-centered definition would be useful for communication with their HCP and for self-management.

IN PRACTICE:

“In this consensus survey study, we identified statements that are critical to the definition of an AD flare from the patient perspective,” the authors wrote. These findings, they added, “may be useful in clinical practice to improve communication between patients and HCPs who may be using the term flare without a mutual understanding of its meaning” and “may also be applied to the development of outcome measures focused on AD flares, which is an important treatment outcome for people with AD.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron M. Drucker, MD, ScM, of the Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and was published online September 11 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Participants had higher-than-average knowledge about AD, and the study’s findings may not be generalizable to all people with AD. The study included a higher proportion of moderate to severe AD cases than the general population, which may introduce responder bias. The findings may not be applicable to children, caregivers, or individuals in other countries.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by a grant to the National Eczema Association from Pfizer. Dr. Drucker disclosed received compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology, American Academy of Dermatology, and Canadian Dermatology Today, and consultant fees from the National Eczema Association and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Another author reported receiving personal fees from pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In a consensus survey study, participants with atopic dermatitis (AD) agreed on a patient-centered definition of AD flare, which most agreed would help when communicating with their healthcare providers (HCPs).

METHODOLOGY:

• To develop a patient-centered definition of AD flare, researchers used a modified eDelphi method, which involved a focus group and survey to reach consensus on key aspects of an AD flare.
• The focus group included 26 US adults aged ≥ 18 years with AD who had experienced a flare within the past 12 months. The survey was conducted among 631 adults with AD to validate the identified concepts and assess their agreement with the consensus statements.
• Participants rated 98 statements on a scale from 1 to 9, with consensus defined as at least 70% rating a statement as 7-9 and less than 15% rating it as 1-3.
• In focus groups, participants identified six key concepts for a patient-centered definition of flare, including changes from baseline, mental and emotional consequences, and physical changes in skin.

TAKEAWAY:

• The focus group reached consensus on 15 statements, and survey participants reached consensus on 12 of those statements defining an AD flare, with the highest agreement on symptoms taking more attention than normal, worsening of physical symptoms associated with AD, and worsening of itching associated with AD.
• The statement “acute worsening of symptoms of AD” was ranked as the most important, while “a worsening of physical symptoms” was ranked the least important.
• Most participants (79.7%) reported that prior definitions of AD flare did not resonate with them.
• More than half (52.9%) agreed with their HCP on what constitutes an AD flare, and the majority (77.6%) indicated that a patient-centered definition would be useful for communication with their HCP and for self-management.

IN PRACTICE:

“In this consensus survey study, we identified statements that are critical to the definition of an AD flare from the patient perspective,” the authors wrote. These findings, they added, “may be useful in clinical practice to improve communication between patients and HCPs who may be using the term flare without a mutual understanding of its meaning” and “may also be applied to the development of outcome measures focused on AD flares, which is an important treatment outcome for people with AD.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron M. Drucker, MD, ScM, of the Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and was published online September 11 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Participants had higher-than-average knowledge about AD, and the study’s findings may not be generalizable to all people with AD. The study included a higher proportion of moderate to severe AD cases than the general population, which may introduce responder bias. The findings may not be applicable to children, caregivers, or individuals in other countries.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by a grant to the National Eczema Association from Pfizer. Dr. Drucker disclosed received compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology, American Academy of Dermatology, and Canadian Dermatology Today, and consultant fees from the National Eczema Association and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Another author reported receiving personal fees from pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nailfold capillaroscopy identifies distinct changes in capillary density, length, and morphology in patients with conditions such as nail psoriasis, onychomycosis, and retronychia.

METHODOLOGY:

• The single-center, observational cross-sectional pilot study evaluated patients aged ≥ 7 years with newly diagnosed nail disorders between January 2022 and May 2023.
• A total of 128 patients (average age, 46.1 years; range, 8-84 years) with nail psoriasis, onychomycosis, idiopathic/traumatic onycholysis, brittle nail syndrome, nail lichen planus, retronychia, and other nail conditions and those with no nail findings (controls) were enrolled.
• Researchers performed nailfold capillaroscopy imaging and compared capillary features between patients with nail conditions and the controls.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with nail psoriasis had decreased capillary density and length (P < .001), more crossed and tortuous capillaries (P < .02), and increased abnormal capillary morphology (P = .03) compared with controls. Specific abnormalities, such as branching and meandering capillaries, were more common among those with nail psoriasis (both 26.5%).
• Patients with fingernail and toenail onychomycosis had a higher frequency of abnormal capillary morphology (P < .02), particularly meandering capillaries (75.0% for fingernails and 76.9% for toenails). However, other abnormalities were less frequently observed.
• Patients with nail lichen planus (P < .01), onychopapilloma (P = .01), and retronychia (P = .03) showed significantly shorter capillaries than controls. Retronychia was also associated with increased disorganized polymorphic capillaries (P = .02).
• Patients with brittle nail syndrome and eczema showed no significant differences compared with controls.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight nailfold capillaroscopy as a potentially quick, cost-effective, and noninvasive imaging modality as an adjunct for diagnosis and treatment initiation for patients with onychodystrophies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jonathan K. Hwang, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, and was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included a small sample size for certain nail conditions and the single-center design, which limited generalizability. Additionally, the uneven surface, scaling, onycholysis, and thickening of toenails made some capillaroscopy images difficult to capture and interpret.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. One author reported serving as a consultant for Eli Lilly, Ortho-Dermatologics, BelleTorus, and Moberg Pharma.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nailfold capillaroscopy identifies distinct changes in capillary density, length, and morphology in patients with conditions such as nail psoriasis, onychomycosis, and retronychia.

METHODOLOGY:

• The single-center, observational cross-sectional pilot study evaluated patients aged ≥ 7 years with newly diagnosed nail disorders between January 2022 and May 2023.
• A total of 128 patients (average age, 46.1 years; range, 8-84 years) with nail psoriasis, onychomycosis, idiopathic/traumatic onycholysis, brittle nail syndrome, nail lichen planus, retronychia, and other nail conditions and those with no nail findings (controls) were enrolled.
• Researchers performed nailfold capillaroscopy imaging and compared capillary features between patients with nail conditions and the controls.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with nail psoriasis had decreased capillary density and length (P < .001), more crossed and tortuous capillaries (P < .02), and increased abnormal capillary morphology (P = .03) compared with controls. Specific abnormalities, such as branching and meandering capillaries, were more common among those with nail psoriasis (both 26.5%).
• Patients with fingernail and toenail onychomycosis had a higher frequency of abnormal capillary morphology (P < .02), particularly meandering capillaries (75.0% for fingernails and 76.9% for toenails). However, other abnormalities were less frequently observed.
• Patients with nail lichen planus (P < .01), onychopapilloma (P = .01), and retronychia (P = .03) showed significantly shorter capillaries than controls. Retronychia was also associated with increased disorganized polymorphic capillaries (P = .02).
• Patients with brittle nail syndrome and eczema showed no significant differences compared with controls.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight nailfold capillaroscopy as a potentially quick, cost-effective, and noninvasive imaging modality as an adjunct for diagnosis and treatment initiation for patients with onychodystrophies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jonathan K. Hwang, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, and was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included a small sample size for certain nail conditions and the single-center design, which limited generalizability. Additionally, the uneven surface, scaling, onycholysis, and thickening of toenails made some capillaroscopy images difficult to capture and interpret.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. One author reported serving as a consultant for Eli Lilly, Ortho-Dermatologics, BelleTorus, and Moberg Pharma.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nailfold capillaroscopy identifies distinct changes in capillary density, length, and morphology in patients with conditions such as nail psoriasis, onychomycosis, and retronychia.

METHODOLOGY:

• The single-center, observational cross-sectional pilot study evaluated patients aged ≥ 7 years with newly diagnosed nail disorders between January 2022 and May 2023.
• A total of 128 patients (average age, 46.1 years; range, 8-84 years) with nail psoriasis, onychomycosis, idiopathic/traumatic onycholysis, brittle nail syndrome, nail lichen planus, retronychia, and other nail conditions and those with no nail findings (controls) were enrolled.
• Researchers performed nailfold capillaroscopy imaging and compared capillary features between patients with nail conditions and the controls.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with nail psoriasis had decreased capillary density and length (P < .001), more crossed and tortuous capillaries (P < .02), and increased abnormal capillary morphology (P = .03) compared with controls. Specific abnormalities, such as branching and meandering capillaries, were more common among those with nail psoriasis (both 26.5%).
• Patients with fingernail and toenail onychomycosis had a higher frequency of abnormal capillary morphology (P < .02), particularly meandering capillaries (75.0% for fingernails and 76.9% for toenails). However, other abnormalities were less frequently observed.
• Patients with nail lichen planus (P < .01), onychopapilloma (P = .01), and retronychia (P = .03) showed significantly shorter capillaries than controls. Retronychia was also associated with increased disorganized polymorphic capillaries (P = .02).
• Patients with brittle nail syndrome and eczema showed no significant differences compared with controls.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight nailfold capillaroscopy as a potentially quick, cost-effective, and noninvasive imaging modality as an adjunct for diagnosis and treatment initiation for patients with onychodystrophies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jonathan K. Hwang, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, and was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included a small sample size for certain nail conditions and the single-center design, which limited generalizability. Additionally, the uneven surface, scaling, onycholysis, and thickening of toenails made some capillaroscopy images difficult to capture and interpret.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. One author reported serving as a consultant for Eli Lilly, Ortho-Dermatologics, BelleTorus, and Moberg Pharma.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

You’ve been sued for medical malpractice. If you are a physician in the United States, that is not an unlikely scenario.

An analysis by the American Medical Association shows that almost half of all physicians are sued by the time they reach 54. In some specialties, such as ob.gyn., one is almost guaranteed to be sued at some point.

But that’s what medical malpractice insurance is for, right? Your medical malpractice insurer will assign an attorney to take care of you and help you through this situation. Won’t they?

Maybe so, but the attorney and the claims representative your insurer assigns to your case may have a different idea about how to proceed than you do. Though the defense attorney assigned to you represents you, he or she gets paid by the insurance carrier.

This can create a conflict when your defense counsel and your insurance claims representative aim to take your case in a direction you don’t like.

Issues dividing defendant physicians, their insurers, and insurance company lawyers who represent them often arise from conflicting perspectives on risk, financial considerations, and reputation damage. Disagreements might include:

• Choice of expert witnesses
• Tactical decisions related to trial strategy
• Public relations considerations
• Admissions of liability
• Allocation of resources

To Settle or Not?

One of the most challenging — and common — disagreements is whether to settle the case.

Sometimes a malpractice insurer wants to settle the case against the defendant doctor’s wishes. Or the doctor wants to settle but is pushed into going to trial. In the following case, one doctor had to face the consequences of a decision he didn’t even make.
 

The Underlying Medical Malpractice Case

Dr. D was sued by a patient who had allegedly called Dr. D’s office six times in 2 days complaining of intermittent chest pain.

Dr. D had been swamped with patients and couldn’t squeeze this patient in for an office visit, but he did call back. The patient later claimed that during the call he told the doctor he was suffering from chest pain. The doctor recalled that the patient had complained of abdominal discomfort that began after he had exercised.

The physician wrote a prescription for an ECG at the local hospital and called to ensure that the patient could just walk in. The ECG was allegedly abnormal but was not read as representing an impending or current heart attack. Later that evening, however, the patient went to the emergency department of another hospital where it was confirmed that he had suffered a heart attack. The patient underwent cardiac catheterization and stent placement to address a blockage in his left anterior descending artery.

The patient subsequently sued Dr. D and the hospital where he had the original ECG. Dr. D contacted his medical malpractice insurance company. The insurance company assigned an attorney to represent Dr. D. Discovery in the case began.

The plaintiff’s own medical expert testified in a deposition that there was no way for the heart attack to have been prevented and that the treatment would have been the same either way. But Dr. D could not find a record of the phone calls with the patient, and he had not noted his conversation the patient in their medical records.

Dr. D held a policy for $1 million, and his state had a fund that would kick in an additional $1 million. But the plaintiffs demanded $4 million to settle.

A month before trial, the plaintiff’s attorney sent a threatening letter to Dr. D’s attorney warning him that Dr. D was underinsured and suggesting that it would be in the physician’s best interests to settle.

“I want to stress to you that it is not my desire to harm your client’s reputation or to destroy his business,” wrote the plaintiff’s attorney. “However, now is the time to avoid consequences such as these by making a good faith effort to get this case resolved.”

The letter went on to note that the defense attorney should give Dr. D a copy of the letter so that everyone would be aware of the potential consequences of an award against Dr. D in excess of his limits of insurance coverage. The plaintiff’s attorney even suggested that Dr. D should retain personal counsel.

Dr. D’s defense attorney downplayed the letter and assured him that there was no reason to worry.

Meanwhile the case inched closer to trial.

The codefendant hospital settled with the plaintiff on the night before jury selection, leaving Dr. D in the uncomfortable position of being the only defendant in the case. At this point, Dr. D decided he would like to settle, and he sent his attorney an email telling him so. But the attorney instead referred him to an insurance company claims.

Just days before the trial was to start, Dr. D repeatedly told the claims representative assigned to his claim that he did not want to go to trial but rather wanted to settle. The representative told Dr. D that he had no choice in whether the action settled.

A committee at the insurance company had decided to proceed with the trial rather than settle.

The trial proved a painful debacle for Dr. D. His attorney’s idea of showing a “gotcha” video of the allegedly permanently injured plaintiff carrying a large, heavy box backfired when the jury was shown by the plaintiff that the box actually contained ice cream cones and weighed very little.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff offered to settle for $1 million. On the first day of trial, they lowered that amount to $750,000, yet the defense attorney did not settle the case, and it proceeded to a jury verdict. The jury awarded the plaintiff over $4 million — well in excess of Dr. D’s policy limits.
 

The Follow-up

Dr. D was horrified, but the insurance company claims representative said the insurer would promptly offer $2 million in available insurance coverage to settle the case post verdict. This did not happen. Instead, the insurer chose to appeal the verdict against Dr. D’s wishes.

Ultimately, Dr. D was forced to hire his own lawyer. He ultimately sued the insurance company for breach of contract and bad faith.

The insurance company eventually attempted to settle with the plaintiffs’ counsel, but the plaintiff refused to accept the available insurance coverage. The insurance carrier still has not posted the entire appeal bond. The case is still pending.
 

Protecting Yourself

The lesson from Dr. D’s experience: Understand that the insurance company is not your friend. It’s a business looking out for its own interests.

The plaintiff’s attorney was absolutely correct in suggesting that Dr. D retain his own attorney to represent his own interests. You should hire your own lawyer when:

• You disagree with your insurer on how to proceed in a case.
• You receive a demand that exceeds your available insurance coverage or for damages that may not be covered by your policy, such as punitive damages.
• Your insurance carrier attempts to deny insurance coverage for your claim or sends you a letter stating that it is “reserving its rights” not to cover or to limit coverage for your claim.

Retaining independent counsel protects your interests, not those of your insurance company.

Independent counsel can give you a second opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of your claim, help you prepare for your deposition, and attend court dates with you to ensure that you are completely protected.

Independent counsel can challenge your insurance company’s decision to deny or limit your insurance coverage and ensure that you receive all of the benefits to which you are entitled under your insurance policy. Some policies may include an independent lawyer to be paid for by your insurance carrier in case of a conflicts.

The most important takeaway? Your medical malpractice insurance carrier is not your friend, so act accordingly in times of conflict.

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

You’ve been sued for medical malpractice. If you are a physician in the United States, that is not an unlikely scenario.

An analysis by the American Medical Association shows that almost half of all physicians are sued by the time they reach 54. In some specialties, such as ob.gyn., one is almost guaranteed to be sued at some point.

But that’s what medical malpractice insurance is for, right? Your medical malpractice insurer will assign an attorney to take care of you and help you through this situation. Won’t they?

Maybe so, but the attorney and the claims representative your insurer assigns to your case may have a different idea about how to proceed than you do. Though the defense attorney assigned to you represents you, he or she gets paid by the insurance carrier.

This can create a conflict when your defense counsel and your insurance claims representative aim to take your case in a direction you don’t like.

Issues dividing defendant physicians, their insurers, and insurance company lawyers who represent them often arise from conflicting perspectives on risk, financial considerations, and reputation damage. Disagreements might include:

• Choice of expert witnesses
• Tactical decisions related to trial strategy
• Public relations considerations
• Admissions of liability
• Allocation of resources

To Settle or Not?

One of the most challenging — and common — disagreements is whether to settle the case.

Sometimes a malpractice insurer wants to settle the case against the defendant doctor’s wishes. Or the doctor wants to settle but is pushed into going to trial. In the following case, one doctor had to face the consequences of a decision he didn’t even make.
 

The Underlying Medical Malpractice Case

Dr. D was sued by a patient who had allegedly called Dr. D’s office six times in 2 days complaining of intermittent chest pain.

Dr. D had been swamped with patients and couldn’t squeeze this patient in for an office visit, but he did call back. The patient later claimed that during the call he told the doctor he was suffering from chest pain. The doctor recalled that the patient had complained of abdominal discomfort that began after he had exercised.

The physician wrote a prescription for an ECG at the local hospital and called to ensure that the patient could just walk in. The ECG was allegedly abnormal but was not read as representing an impending or current heart attack. Later that evening, however, the patient went to the emergency department of another hospital where it was confirmed that he had suffered a heart attack. The patient underwent cardiac catheterization and stent placement to address a blockage in his left anterior descending artery.

The patient subsequently sued Dr. D and the hospital where he had the original ECG. Dr. D contacted his medical malpractice insurance company. The insurance company assigned an attorney to represent Dr. D. Discovery in the case began.

The plaintiff’s own medical expert testified in a deposition that there was no way for the heart attack to have been prevented and that the treatment would have been the same either way. But Dr. D could not find a record of the phone calls with the patient, and he had not noted his conversation the patient in their medical records.

Dr. D held a policy for $1 million, and his state had a fund that would kick in an additional $1 million. But the plaintiffs demanded $4 million to settle.

A month before trial, the plaintiff’s attorney sent a threatening letter to Dr. D’s attorney warning him that Dr. D was underinsured and suggesting that it would be in the physician’s best interests to settle.

“I want to stress to you that it is not my desire to harm your client’s reputation or to destroy his business,” wrote the plaintiff’s attorney. “However, now is the time to avoid consequences such as these by making a good faith effort to get this case resolved.”

The letter went on to note that the defense attorney should give Dr. D a copy of the letter so that everyone would be aware of the potential consequences of an award against Dr. D in excess of his limits of insurance coverage. The plaintiff’s attorney even suggested that Dr. D should retain personal counsel.

Dr. D’s defense attorney downplayed the letter and assured him that there was no reason to worry.

Meanwhile the case inched closer to trial.

The codefendant hospital settled with the plaintiff on the night before jury selection, leaving Dr. D in the uncomfortable position of being the only defendant in the case. At this point, Dr. D decided he would like to settle, and he sent his attorney an email telling him so. But the attorney instead referred him to an insurance company claims.

Just days before the trial was to start, Dr. D repeatedly told the claims representative assigned to his claim that he did not want to go to trial but rather wanted to settle. The representative told Dr. D that he had no choice in whether the action settled.

A committee at the insurance company had decided to proceed with the trial rather than settle.

The trial proved a painful debacle for Dr. D. His attorney’s idea of showing a “gotcha” video of the allegedly permanently injured plaintiff carrying a large, heavy box backfired when the jury was shown by the plaintiff that the box actually contained ice cream cones and weighed very little.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff offered to settle for $1 million. On the first day of trial, they lowered that amount to $750,000, yet the defense attorney did not settle the case, and it proceeded to a jury verdict. The jury awarded the plaintiff over $4 million — well in excess of Dr. D’s policy limits.
 

The Follow-up

Dr. D was horrified, but the insurance company claims representative said the insurer would promptly offer $2 million in available insurance coverage to settle the case post verdict. This did not happen. Instead, the insurer chose to appeal the verdict against Dr. D’s wishes.

Ultimately, Dr. D was forced to hire his own lawyer. He ultimately sued the insurance company for breach of contract and bad faith.

The insurance company eventually attempted to settle with the plaintiffs’ counsel, but the plaintiff refused to accept the available insurance coverage. The insurance carrier still has not posted the entire appeal bond. The case is still pending.
 

Protecting Yourself

The lesson from Dr. D’s experience: Understand that the insurance company is not your friend. It’s a business looking out for its own interests.

The plaintiff’s attorney was absolutely correct in suggesting that Dr. D retain his own attorney to represent his own interests. You should hire your own lawyer when:

• You disagree with your insurer on how to proceed in a case.
• You receive a demand that exceeds your available insurance coverage or for damages that may not be covered by your policy, such as punitive damages.
• Your insurance carrier attempts to deny insurance coverage for your claim or sends you a letter stating that it is “reserving its rights” not to cover or to limit coverage for your claim.

Retaining independent counsel protects your interests, not those of your insurance company.

Independent counsel can give you a second opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of your claim, help you prepare for your deposition, and attend court dates with you to ensure that you are completely protected.

Independent counsel can challenge your insurance company’s decision to deny or limit your insurance coverage and ensure that you receive all of the benefits to which you are entitled under your insurance policy. Some policies may include an independent lawyer to be paid for by your insurance carrier in case of a conflicts.

The most important takeaway? Your medical malpractice insurance carrier is not your friend, so act accordingly in times of conflict.

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

You’ve been sued for medical malpractice. If you are a physician in the United States, that is not an unlikely scenario.

An analysis by the American Medical Association shows that almost half of all physicians are sued by the time they reach 54. In some specialties, such as ob.gyn., one is almost guaranteed to be sued at some point.

But that’s what medical malpractice insurance is for, right? Your medical malpractice insurer will assign an attorney to take care of you and help you through this situation. Won’t they?

Maybe so, but the attorney and the claims representative your insurer assigns to your case may have a different idea about how to proceed than you do. Though the defense attorney assigned to you represents you, he or she gets paid by the insurance carrier.

This can create a conflict when your defense counsel and your insurance claims representative aim to take your case in a direction you don’t like.

Issues dividing defendant physicians, their insurers, and insurance company lawyers who represent them often arise from conflicting perspectives on risk, financial considerations, and reputation damage. Disagreements might include:

• Choice of expert witnesses
• Tactical decisions related to trial strategy
• Public relations considerations
• Admissions of liability
• Allocation of resources

To Settle or Not?

One of the most challenging — and common — disagreements is whether to settle the case.

Sometimes a malpractice insurer wants to settle the case against the defendant doctor’s wishes. Or the doctor wants to settle but is pushed into going to trial. In the following case, one doctor had to face the consequences of a decision he didn’t even make.
 

The Underlying Medical Malpractice Case

Dr. D was sued by a patient who had allegedly called Dr. D’s office six times in 2 days complaining of intermittent chest pain.

Dr. D had been swamped with patients and couldn’t squeeze this patient in for an office visit, but he did call back. The patient later claimed that during the call he told the doctor he was suffering from chest pain. The doctor recalled that the patient had complained of abdominal discomfort that began after he had exercised.

The physician wrote a prescription for an ECG at the local hospital and called to ensure that the patient could just walk in. The ECG was allegedly abnormal but was not read as representing an impending or current heart attack. Later that evening, however, the patient went to the emergency department of another hospital where it was confirmed that he had suffered a heart attack. The patient underwent cardiac catheterization and stent placement to address a blockage in his left anterior descending artery.

The patient subsequently sued Dr. D and the hospital where he had the original ECG. Dr. D contacted his medical malpractice insurance company. The insurance company assigned an attorney to represent Dr. D. Discovery in the case began.

The plaintiff’s own medical expert testified in a deposition that there was no way for the heart attack to have been prevented and that the treatment would have been the same either way. But Dr. D could not find a record of the phone calls with the patient, and he had not noted his conversation the patient in their medical records.

Dr. D held a policy for $1 million, and his state had a fund that would kick in an additional $1 million. But the plaintiffs demanded $4 million to settle.

A month before trial, the plaintiff’s attorney sent a threatening letter to Dr. D’s attorney warning him that Dr. D was underinsured and suggesting that it would be in the physician’s best interests to settle.

“I want to stress to you that it is not my desire to harm your client’s reputation or to destroy his business,” wrote the plaintiff’s attorney. “However, now is the time to avoid consequences such as these by making a good faith effort to get this case resolved.”

The letter went on to note that the defense attorney should give Dr. D a copy of the letter so that everyone would be aware of the potential consequences of an award against Dr. D in excess of his limits of insurance coverage. The plaintiff’s attorney even suggested that Dr. D should retain personal counsel.

Dr. D’s defense attorney downplayed the letter and assured him that there was no reason to worry.

Meanwhile the case inched closer to trial.

The codefendant hospital settled with the plaintiff on the night before jury selection, leaving Dr. D in the uncomfortable position of being the only defendant in the case. At this point, Dr. D decided he would like to settle, and he sent his attorney an email telling him so. But the attorney instead referred him to an insurance company claims.

Just days before the trial was to start, Dr. D repeatedly told the claims representative assigned to his claim that he did not want to go to trial but rather wanted to settle. The representative told Dr. D that he had no choice in whether the action settled.

A committee at the insurance company had decided to proceed with the trial rather than settle.

The trial proved a painful debacle for Dr. D. His attorney’s idea of showing a “gotcha” video of the allegedly permanently injured plaintiff carrying a large, heavy box backfired when the jury was shown by the plaintiff that the box actually contained ice cream cones and weighed very little.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff offered to settle for $1 million. On the first day of trial, they lowered that amount to $750,000, yet the defense attorney did not settle the case, and it proceeded to a jury verdict. The jury awarded the plaintiff over $4 million — well in excess of Dr. D’s policy limits.
 

The Follow-up

Dr. D was horrified, but the insurance company claims representative said the insurer would promptly offer $2 million in available insurance coverage to settle the case post verdict. This did not happen. Instead, the insurer chose to appeal the verdict against Dr. D’s wishes.

Ultimately, Dr. D was forced to hire his own lawyer. He ultimately sued the insurance company for breach of contract and bad faith.

The insurance company eventually attempted to settle with the plaintiffs’ counsel, but the plaintiff refused to accept the available insurance coverage. The insurance carrier still has not posted the entire appeal bond. The case is still pending.
 

Protecting Yourself

The lesson from Dr. D’s experience: Understand that the insurance company is not your friend. It’s a business looking out for its own interests.

The plaintiff’s attorney was absolutely correct in suggesting that Dr. D retain his own attorney to represent his own interests. You should hire your own lawyer when:

• You disagree with your insurer on how to proceed in a case.
• You receive a demand that exceeds your available insurance coverage or for damages that may not be covered by your policy, such as punitive damages.
• Your insurance carrier attempts to deny insurance coverage for your claim or sends you a letter stating that it is “reserving its rights” not to cover or to limit coverage for your claim.

Retaining independent counsel protects your interests, not those of your insurance company.

Independent counsel can give you a second opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of your claim, help you prepare for your deposition, and attend court dates with you to ensure that you are completely protected.

Independent counsel can challenge your insurance company’s decision to deny or limit your insurance coverage and ensure that you receive all of the benefits to which you are entitled under your insurance policy. Some policies may include an independent lawyer to be paid for by your insurance carrier in case of a conflicts.

The most important takeaway? Your medical malpractice insurance carrier is not your friend, so act accordingly in times of conflict.

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

The term “reform school” is a bit outdated. It used to refer to institutions where young offenders were sent instead of prison. Some argue that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should bypass reform school and go straight to prison. “PBM reform” has become a ubiquitous term, encompassing any legislative or regulatory efforts aimed at curbing PBMs’ bad behavior. When discussing PBM reform, it’s crucial to understand the various segments of the healthcare system affected by PBMs. This complexity often makes it challenging to determine what these reform packages would actually achieve and who they would benefit.

Pharmacists have long been vocal critics of PBMs, and while their issues are extremely important, it is essential to remember that the ultimate victims of PBM misconduct, in terms of access to care, are patients. At some point, we will all be patients, making this issue universally relevant. It has been quite challenging to follow federal legislation on this topic as these packages attempt to address a number of bad behaviors by PBMs affecting a variety of victims. This discussion will examine those reforms that would directly improve patient’s access to available and affordable medications.
 

Policy Categories of PBM Reform

There are five policy categories of PBM reform legislation overall, including three that have the greatest potential to directly address patient needs. The first is patient access to medications (utilization management, copay assistance, prior authorization, etc.), followed by delinking drug list prices from PBM income and pass-through of price concessions from the manufacturer. The remaining two categories involve transparency and pharmacy-facing reform, both of which are very important. However, this discussion will revolve around the first three categories. It should be noted that many of the legislation packages addressing the categories of patient access, delinking, and pass-through also include transparency issues, particularly as they relate to pharmacy-facing issues.

Patient Access to Medications — Step Therapy Legislation

One of the major obstacles to patient access to medications is the use of PBM utilization management tools such as step therapy (“fail first”), prior authorizations, nonmedical switching, and formulary exclusions. These tools dictate when patients can obtain necessary medications and for how long patients who are stable on their current treatments can remain on them.

While many states have enacted step therapy reforms to prevent stable patients from being whip-sawed between medications that maximize PBM profits (often labeled as “savings”), these state protections apply only to state-regulated health plans. These include fully insured health plans and those offered through the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace. It also includes state employees, state corrections, and, in some cases, state labor unions. State legislation does not extend to patients covered by employer self-insured health plans, called ERISA plans for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. These ERISA plans include nearly 35 million people nationwide.

This is where the Safe Step Act (S.652/H.R.2630) becomes crucial, as it allows employees to request exceptions to harmful fail-first protocols. The bill has gained significant momentum, having been reported out of the Senate HELP Committee and discussed in House markups. The Safe Step Act would mandate that an exception to a step therapy protocol must be granted if:

• The required treatment has been ineffective
• The treatment is expected to be ineffective, and delaying effective treatment would lead to irreversible consequences
• The treatment will cause or is likely to cause an adverse reaction
• The treatment is expected to prevent the individual from performing daily activities or occupational responsibilities
• The individual is stable on their current prescription drugs
• There are other circumstances as determined by the Employee Benefits Security Administration

This legislation is vital for ensuring that patients have timely access to the medications they need without unnecessary delays or disruptions.
 

Patient Access to Medications — Prior Authorizations

Another significant issue affecting patient access to medications is prior authorizations (PAs). According to an American Medical Association survey, nearly one in four physicians (24%) report that a PA has led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care. In rheumatology, PAs often result in delays in care (even for those initially approved) and a significant increase in steroid usage. In particular, PAs in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are harmful to Medicare beneficiaries.

The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R.8702 / S.4532) aims to reform PAs used in MA plans, making the process more efficient and transparent to improve access to care for seniors. Unfortunately, it does not cover Part D drugs and may only cover Part B drugs depending on the MA plan’s benefit package. Here are the key provisions of the act:

• Electronic PA: Implementing real-time decisions for routinely approved items and services.
• Transparency: Requiring annual publication of PA information, such as the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Quality and Timeliness Standards: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will set standards for the quality and timeliness of PA determinations.
• Streamlining Approvals: Simplifying the approval process and reducing the time allowed for health plans to consider PA requests.

This bill passed the House in September 2022 but stalled in the Senate because of an unfavorable Congressional Budget Office score. CMS has since finalized portions of this bill via regulation, zeroing out the CBO score and increasing the chances of its passage.
 

Delinking Drug Prices from PBM Income and Pass-Through of Price Concessions

Affordability is a crucial aspect of accessibility, especially when it comes to medications. Over the years, we’ve learned that PBMs often favor placing the highest list price drugs on formularies because the rebates and various fees they receive from manufacturers are based on a percentage of the list price. In other words, the higher the medication’s price, the more money the PBM makes.

This practice is evident in both commercial and government formularies, where brand-name drugs are often preferred, while lower-priced generics are either excluded or placed on higher tiers. As a result, while major PBMs benefit from these rebates and fees, patients continue to pay their cost share based on the list price of the medication.

To improve the affordability of medications, a key aspect of PBM reform should be to disincentivize PBMs from selecting higher-priced medications and/or require the pass-through of manufacturer price concessions to patients.

Several major PBM reform bills are currently being considered that address either the delinking of price concessions from the list price of the drug or some form of pass-through of these concessions. These reforms are essential to ensure that patients can access affordable medications without being burdened by inflated costs.

The legislation includes the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act (S.1339); the Modernizing & Ensuring PBM Accountability Act (S.2973); the Better Mental Health Care, Lower Cost Drugs, and Extenders Act (S.3430); the Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act (H.R. 2880); the DRUG Act (S.2474 / H.R.6283); and the Share the Savings with Seniors Act (S.2474 / H.R.5376).

As with all legislation, there are limitations and compromises in each of these. However, these bills are a good first step in addressing PBM remuneration (rebates and fees) based on the list price of the drug and/or passing through to the patient the benefit of manufacturer price concessions. By focusing on key areas like utilization management, delinking drug prices from PBM income, and allowing patients to directly benefit from manufacturer price concessions, we can work toward a more equitable and efficient healthcare system. Reigning in PBM bad behavior is a challenge, but the potential benefits for patient care and access make it a crucial fight worth pursuing.

Please help in efforts to improve patients’ access to available and affordable medications by contacting your representatives in Congress to impart to them the importance of passing legislation. The CSRO’s legislative map tool can help to inform you of the latest information on these and other bills and assist you in engaging with your representatives on them.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. She has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The term “reform school” is a bit outdated. It used to refer to institutions where young offenders were sent instead of prison. Some argue that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should bypass reform school and go straight to prison. “PBM reform” has become a ubiquitous term, encompassing any legislative or regulatory efforts aimed at curbing PBMs’ bad behavior. When discussing PBM reform, it’s crucial to understand the various segments of the healthcare system affected by PBMs. This complexity often makes it challenging to determine what these reform packages would actually achieve and who they would benefit.

Pharmacists have long been vocal critics of PBMs, and while their issues are extremely important, it is essential to remember that the ultimate victims of PBM misconduct, in terms of access to care, are patients. At some point, we will all be patients, making this issue universally relevant. It has been quite challenging to follow federal legislation on this topic as these packages attempt to address a number of bad behaviors by PBMs affecting a variety of victims. This discussion will examine those reforms that would directly improve patient’s access to available and affordable medications.
 

Policy Categories of PBM Reform

There are five policy categories of PBM reform legislation overall, including three that have the greatest potential to directly address patient needs. The first is patient access to medications (utilization management, copay assistance, prior authorization, etc.), followed by delinking drug list prices from PBM income and pass-through of price concessions from the manufacturer. The remaining two categories involve transparency and pharmacy-facing reform, both of which are very important. However, this discussion will revolve around the first three categories. It should be noted that many of the legislation packages addressing the categories of patient access, delinking, and pass-through also include transparency issues, particularly as they relate to pharmacy-facing issues.

Patient Access to Medications — Step Therapy Legislation

One of the major obstacles to patient access to medications is the use of PBM utilization management tools such as step therapy (“fail first”), prior authorizations, nonmedical switching, and formulary exclusions. These tools dictate when patients can obtain necessary medications and for how long patients who are stable on their current treatments can remain on them.

While many states have enacted step therapy reforms to prevent stable patients from being whip-sawed between medications that maximize PBM profits (often labeled as “savings”), these state protections apply only to state-regulated health plans. These include fully insured health plans and those offered through the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace. It also includes state employees, state corrections, and, in some cases, state labor unions. State legislation does not extend to patients covered by employer self-insured health plans, called ERISA plans for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. These ERISA plans include nearly 35 million people nationwide.

This is where the Safe Step Act (S.652/H.R.2630) becomes crucial, as it allows employees to request exceptions to harmful fail-first protocols. The bill has gained significant momentum, having been reported out of the Senate HELP Committee and discussed in House markups. The Safe Step Act would mandate that an exception to a step therapy protocol must be granted if:

• The required treatment has been ineffective
• The treatment is expected to be ineffective, and delaying effective treatment would lead to irreversible consequences
• The treatment will cause or is likely to cause an adverse reaction
• The treatment is expected to prevent the individual from performing daily activities or occupational responsibilities
• The individual is stable on their current prescription drugs
• There are other circumstances as determined by the Employee Benefits Security Administration

This legislation is vital for ensuring that patients have timely access to the medications they need without unnecessary delays or disruptions.
 

Patient Access to Medications — Prior Authorizations

Another significant issue affecting patient access to medications is prior authorizations (PAs). According to an American Medical Association survey, nearly one in four physicians (24%) report that a PA has led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care. In rheumatology, PAs often result in delays in care (even for those initially approved) and a significant increase in steroid usage. In particular, PAs in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are harmful to Medicare beneficiaries.

The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R.8702 / S.4532) aims to reform PAs used in MA plans, making the process more efficient and transparent to improve access to care for seniors. Unfortunately, it does not cover Part D drugs and may only cover Part B drugs depending on the MA plan’s benefit package. Here are the key provisions of the act:

• Electronic PA: Implementing real-time decisions for routinely approved items and services.
• Transparency: Requiring annual publication of PA information, such as the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Quality and Timeliness Standards: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will set standards for the quality and timeliness of PA determinations.
• Streamlining Approvals: Simplifying the approval process and reducing the time allowed for health plans to consider PA requests.

This bill passed the House in September 2022 but stalled in the Senate because of an unfavorable Congressional Budget Office score. CMS has since finalized portions of this bill via regulation, zeroing out the CBO score and increasing the chances of its passage.
 

Delinking Drug Prices from PBM Income and Pass-Through of Price Concessions

Affordability is a crucial aspect of accessibility, especially when it comes to medications. Over the years, we’ve learned that PBMs often favor placing the highest list price drugs on formularies because the rebates and various fees they receive from manufacturers are based on a percentage of the list price. In other words, the higher the medication’s price, the more money the PBM makes.

This practice is evident in both commercial and government formularies, where brand-name drugs are often preferred, while lower-priced generics are either excluded or placed on higher tiers. As a result, while major PBMs benefit from these rebates and fees, patients continue to pay their cost share based on the list price of the medication.

To improve the affordability of medications, a key aspect of PBM reform should be to disincentivize PBMs from selecting higher-priced medications and/or require the pass-through of manufacturer price concessions to patients.

Several major PBM reform bills are currently being considered that address either the delinking of price concessions from the list price of the drug or some form of pass-through of these concessions. These reforms are essential to ensure that patients can access affordable medications without being burdened by inflated costs.

The legislation includes the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act (S.1339); the Modernizing & Ensuring PBM Accountability Act (S.2973); the Better Mental Health Care, Lower Cost Drugs, and Extenders Act (S.3430); the Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act (H.R. 2880); the DRUG Act (S.2474 / H.R.6283); and the Share the Savings with Seniors Act (S.2474 / H.R.5376).

As with all legislation, there are limitations and compromises in each of these. However, these bills are a good first step in addressing PBM remuneration (rebates and fees) based on the list price of the drug and/or passing through to the patient the benefit of manufacturer price concessions. By focusing on key areas like utilization management, delinking drug prices from PBM income, and allowing patients to directly benefit from manufacturer price concessions, we can work toward a more equitable and efficient healthcare system. Reigning in PBM bad behavior is a challenge, but the potential benefits for patient care and access make it a crucial fight worth pursuing.

Please help in efforts to improve patients’ access to available and affordable medications by contacting your representatives in Congress to impart to them the importance of passing legislation. The CSRO’s legislative map tool can help to inform you of the latest information on these and other bills and assist you in engaging with your representatives on them.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. She has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The term “reform school” is a bit outdated. It used to refer to institutions where young offenders were sent instead of prison. Some argue that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should bypass reform school and go straight to prison. “PBM reform” has become a ubiquitous term, encompassing any legislative or regulatory efforts aimed at curbing PBMs’ bad behavior. When discussing PBM reform, it’s crucial to understand the various segments of the healthcare system affected by PBMs. This complexity often makes it challenging to determine what these reform packages would actually achieve and who they would benefit.

Pharmacists have long been vocal critics of PBMs, and while their issues are extremely important, it is essential to remember that the ultimate victims of PBM misconduct, in terms of access to care, are patients. At some point, we will all be patients, making this issue universally relevant. It has been quite challenging to follow federal legislation on this topic as these packages attempt to address a number of bad behaviors by PBMs affecting a variety of victims. This discussion will examine those reforms that would directly improve patient’s access to available and affordable medications.
 

Policy Categories of PBM Reform

There are five policy categories of PBM reform legislation overall, including three that have the greatest potential to directly address patient needs. The first is patient access to medications (utilization management, copay assistance, prior authorization, etc.), followed by delinking drug list prices from PBM income and pass-through of price concessions from the manufacturer. The remaining two categories involve transparency and pharmacy-facing reform, both of which are very important. However, this discussion will revolve around the first three categories. It should be noted that many of the legislation packages addressing the categories of patient access, delinking, and pass-through also include transparency issues, particularly as they relate to pharmacy-facing issues.

Patient Access to Medications — Step Therapy Legislation

One of the major obstacles to patient access to medications is the use of PBM utilization management tools such as step therapy (“fail first”), prior authorizations, nonmedical switching, and formulary exclusions. These tools dictate when patients can obtain necessary medications and for how long patients who are stable on their current treatments can remain on them.

While many states have enacted step therapy reforms to prevent stable patients from being whip-sawed between medications that maximize PBM profits (often labeled as “savings”), these state protections apply only to state-regulated health plans. These include fully insured health plans and those offered through the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace. It also includes state employees, state corrections, and, in some cases, state labor unions. State legislation does not extend to patients covered by employer self-insured health plans, called ERISA plans for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. These ERISA plans include nearly 35 million people nationwide.

This is where the Safe Step Act (S.652/H.R.2630) becomes crucial, as it allows employees to request exceptions to harmful fail-first protocols. The bill has gained significant momentum, having been reported out of the Senate HELP Committee and discussed in House markups. The Safe Step Act would mandate that an exception to a step therapy protocol must be granted if:

• The required treatment has been ineffective
• The treatment is expected to be ineffective, and delaying effective treatment would lead to irreversible consequences
• The treatment will cause or is likely to cause an adverse reaction
• The treatment is expected to prevent the individual from performing daily activities or occupational responsibilities
• The individual is stable on their current prescription drugs
• There are other circumstances as determined by the Employee Benefits Security Administration

This legislation is vital for ensuring that patients have timely access to the medications they need without unnecessary delays or disruptions.
 

Patient Access to Medications — Prior Authorizations

Another significant issue affecting patient access to medications is prior authorizations (PAs). According to an American Medical Association survey, nearly one in four physicians (24%) report that a PA has led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care. In rheumatology, PAs often result in delays in care (even for those initially approved) and a significant increase in steroid usage. In particular, PAs in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are harmful to Medicare beneficiaries.

The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R.8702 / S.4532) aims to reform PAs used in MA plans, making the process more efficient and transparent to improve access to care for seniors. Unfortunately, it does not cover Part D drugs and may only cover Part B drugs depending on the MA plan’s benefit package. Here are the key provisions of the act:

• Electronic PA: Implementing real-time decisions for routinely approved items and services.
• Transparency: Requiring annual publication of PA information, such as the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Quality and Timeliness Standards: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will set standards for the quality and timeliness of PA determinations.
• Streamlining Approvals: Simplifying the approval process and reducing the time allowed for health plans to consider PA requests.

This bill passed the House in September 2022 but stalled in the Senate because of an unfavorable Congressional Budget Office score. CMS has since finalized portions of this bill via regulation, zeroing out the CBO score and increasing the chances of its passage.
 

Delinking Drug Prices from PBM Income and Pass-Through of Price Concessions

Affordability is a crucial aspect of accessibility, especially when it comes to medications. Over the years, we’ve learned that PBMs often favor placing the highest list price drugs on formularies because the rebates and various fees they receive from manufacturers are based on a percentage of the list price. In other words, the higher the medication’s price, the more money the PBM makes.

This practice is evident in both commercial and government formularies, where brand-name drugs are often preferred, while lower-priced generics are either excluded or placed on higher tiers. As a result, while major PBMs benefit from these rebates and fees, patients continue to pay their cost share based on the list price of the medication.

To improve the affordability of medications, a key aspect of PBM reform should be to disincentivize PBMs from selecting higher-priced medications and/or require the pass-through of manufacturer price concessions to patients.

Several major PBM reform bills are currently being considered that address either the delinking of price concessions from the list price of the drug or some form of pass-through of these concessions. These reforms are essential to ensure that patients can access affordable medications without being burdened by inflated costs.

The legislation includes the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act (S.1339); the Modernizing & Ensuring PBM Accountability Act (S.2973); the Better Mental Health Care, Lower Cost Drugs, and Extenders Act (S.3430); the Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act (H.R. 2880); the DRUG Act (S.2474 / H.R.6283); and the Share the Savings with Seniors Act (S.2474 / H.R.5376).

As with all legislation, there are limitations and compromises in each of these. However, these bills are a good first step in addressing PBM remuneration (rebates and fees) based on the list price of the drug and/or passing through to the patient the benefit of manufacturer price concessions. By focusing on key areas like utilization management, delinking drug prices from PBM income, and allowing patients to directly benefit from manufacturer price concessions, we can work toward a more equitable and efficient healthcare system. Reigning in PBM bad behavior is a challenge, but the potential benefits for patient care and access make it a crucial fight worth pursuing.

Please help in efforts to improve patients’ access to available and affordable medications by contacting your representatives in Congress to impart to them the importance of passing legislation. The CSRO’s legislative map tool can help to inform you of the latest information on these and other bills and assist you in engaging with your representatives on them.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. She has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

TOPLINE:

An artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical documentation tool helped reduce time spent on electronic health records (EHR) at home for almost 48% physicians, and nearly 45% reported less weekly time spent on EHR tasks outside of normal work hours.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers recruited 112 clinicians from family medicine, internal medicine, and general pediatrics in North Carolina and Georgia.
• Patients were divided into an intervention group (n = 85) and control group (n = 55), with the intervention group receiving a 1-hour training program on a commercially available AI tool.
• A seven-question survey was administered to participants before and 5 weeks after the intervention to evaluate their experience.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers found 47.1% of clinicians in the intervention group reported spending less time on the EHR at home compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001); 44.7% reported decreased weekly time on the EHR outside normal work hours compared with 20% in the control group (P = .003).
• The study revealed 43.5% of physicians who used the AI instrument reported spending less time on documentation after visits compared with 18.2% in the control group (P = .002).
• Further, 44.7% reported less frustration when using the EHR compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Approximately half of clinicians using the AI-powered clinical documentation tool based on interest reported a positive outcome, potentially reducing burnout. However, a significant subset did not find time-saving benefits or improved EHR experience,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tsai-Ling Liu, PhD, Center for Health System Sciences, Atrium Health in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported potential selection and recall bias in both groups. Additional research is needed to find areas of improvement and assess the effects on clinician groups and health systems, they said.

DISCLOSURES:

Andrew McWilliams, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, the National Institutes of Health, and the Duke Endowment unrelated to this work. Ajay Dharod, MD, reported his role as an electronic health record consultant for the Association of American Medical College CORE program. Jeffrey Cleveland, MD, disclosed his participation on the Executive Client Council, a noncompensated advisory group, for Nuance/Microsoft.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical documentation tool helped reduce time spent on electronic health records (EHR) at home for almost 48% physicians, and nearly 45% reported less weekly time spent on EHR tasks outside of normal work hours.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers recruited 112 clinicians from family medicine, internal medicine, and general pediatrics in North Carolina and Georgia.
• Patients were divided into an intervention group (n = 85) and control group (n = 55), with the intervention group receiving a 1-hour training program on a commercially available AI tool.
• A seven-question survey was administered to participants before and 5 weeks after the intervention to evaluate their experience.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers found 47.1% of clinicians in the intervention group reported spending less time on the EHR at home compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001); 44.7% reported decreased weekly time on the EHR outside normal work hours compared with 20% in the control group (P = .003).
• The study revealed 43.5% of physicians who used the AI instrument reported spending less time on documentation after visits compared with 18.2% in the control group (P = .002).
• Further, 44.7% reported less frustration when using the EHR compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Approximately half of clinicians using the AI-powered clinical documentation tool based on interest reported a positive outcome, potentially reducing burnout. However, a significant subset did not find time-saving benefits or improved EHR experience,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tsai-Ling Liu, PhD, Center for Health System Sciences, Atrium Health in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported potential selection and recall bias in both groups. Additional research is needed to find areas of improvement and assess the effects on clinician groups and health systems, they said.

DISCLOSURES:

Andrew McWilliams, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, the National Institutes of Health, and the Duke Endowment unrelated to this work. Ajay Dharod, MD, reported his role as an electronic health record consultant for the Association of American Medical College CORE program. Jeffrey Cleveland, MD, disclosed his participation on the Executive Client Council, a noncompensated advisory group, for Nuance/Microsoft.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical documentation tool helped reduce time spent on electronic health records (EHR) at home for almost 48% physicians, and nearly 45% reported less weekly time spent on EHR tasks outside of normal work hours.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers recruited 112 clinicians from family medicine, internal medicine, and general pediatrics in North Carolina and Georgia.
• Patients were divided into an intervention group (n = 85) and control group (n = 55), with the intervention group receiving a 1-hour training program on a commercially available AI tool.
• A seven-question survey was administered to participants before and 5 weeks after the intervention to evaluate their experience.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers found 47.1% of clinicians in the intervention group reported spending less time on the EHR at home compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001); 44.7% reported decreased weekly time on the EHR outside normal work hours compared with 20% in the control group (P = .003).
• The study revealed 43.5% of physicians who used the AI instrument reported spending less time on documentation after visits compared with 18.2% in the control group (P = .002).
• Further, 44.7% reported less frustration when using the EHR compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Approximately half of clinicians using the AI-powered clinical documentation tool based on interest reported a positive outcome, potentially reducing burnout. However, a significant subset did not find time-saving benefits or improved EHR experience,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tsai-Ling Liu, PhD, Center for Health System Sciences, Atrium Health in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported potential selection and recall bias in both groups. Additional research is needed to find areas of improvement and assess the effects on clinician groups and health systems, they said.

DISCLOSURES:

Andrew McWilliams, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, the National Institutes of Health, and the Duke Endowment unrelated to this work. Ajay Dharod, MD, reported his role as an electronic health record consultant for the Association of American Medical College CORE program. Jeffrey Cleveland, MD, disclosed his participation on the Executive Client Council, a noncompensated advisory group, for Nuance/Microsoft.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Reports of blood and lymphatic disorders were higher in pediatric patients treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors than in adults in a review of US and Canadian adverse event (AE) data, which also found that acne was the most common skin-related AE in children, and serious AEs were less common.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed 399,649 AEs in 133,216 adult patients and 2883 AEs in 955 pediatric patients (age, < 18 years) from November 2011 to February 2023 using the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System and the Canada Vigilance Adverse Reaction Online Database.
• AEs were categorized on the basis of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities system organ class.
• Five JAK inhibitors approved for use in children were included in the study: Baricitinib, upadacitinib, abrocitinib, ruxolitinib, and tofacitinib.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most frequently reported AEs in children were blood and lymphatic system disorders, including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia (24%); viral, fungal, and bacterial infections, such as pneumonia and sepsis (17.2%); constitutional symptoms and administrative concerns, including pyrexia and fatigue (15.7%); gastrointestinal disorders, such as vomiting and abdominal pain (13.6%); and respiratory disorders, such as cough and respiratory distress (5.3%).
• In adults, the most common AEs were viral, fungal, and bacterial infections (16.8%); constitutional symptoms and administrative concerns (13.5%); musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (7.04%); and gastrointestinal (5.8%) and nervous system (5%) disorders.
• Acne (30.6%), atopic dermatitis (22.2%), and psoriasis (16.7%) were the most common skin and subcutaneous tissue AEs reported in children. Skin and subcutaneous AEs were more common with upadacitinib (21.1%), abrocitinib (9.1%), and tofacitinib (6.3%) in children.
• Serious AEs included in the boxed warning for JAK inhibitors — serious infection, mortality, malignancy, cardiovascular events, and thrombosis — were similar for baricitinib in children (4 of 49 patients, 8.2%) and adults (325 of 3707, 8.8%). For other JAK inhibitors, absolute numbers of these AEs in children were small and rates were lower in children than in adults.

IN PRACTICE:

“This information can support customized treatment and minimize the potential for undesired or intolerable AEs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Sahithi Talasila, BS, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and was published online in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Pharmacovigilance registries did not fully capture the complete range of AEs because of potential reporting bias or recall bias. Additionally, events lacking sufficient objective evidence were underreported, while common AEs associated with JAK inhibitor therapy were overreported.

DISCLOSURES:

No specific funding sources for the study were reported. One author reported being a consultant, one reported serving as a principal investigator in clinical trials, and another reported serving on data and safety monitoring boards of various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Reports of blood and lymphatic disorders were higher in pediatric patients treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors than in adults in a review of US and Canadian adverse event (AE) data, which also found that acne was the most common skin-related AE in children, and serious AEs were less common.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed 399,649 AEs in 133,216 adult patients and 2883 AEs in 955 pediatric patients (age, < 18 years) from November 2011 to February 2023 using the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System and the Canada Vigilance Adverse Reaction Online Database.
• AEs were categorized on the basis of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities system organ class.
• Five JAK inhibitors approved for use in children were included in the study: Baricitinib, upadacitinib, abrocitinib, ruxolitinib, and tofacitinib.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most frequently reported AEs in children were blood and lymphatic system disorders, including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia (24%); viral, fungal, and bacterial infections, such as pneumonia and sepsis (17.2%); constitutional symptoms and administrative concerns, including pyrexia and fatigue (15.7%); gastrointestinal disorders, such as vomiting and abdominal pain (13.6%); and respiratory disorders, such as cough and respiratory distress (5.3%).
• In adults, the most common AEs were viral, fungal, and bacterial infections (16.8%); constitutional symptoms and administrative concerns (13.5%); musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (7.04%); and gastrointestinal (5.8%) and nervous system (5%) disorders.
• Acne (30.6%), atopic dermatitis (22.2%), and psoriasis (16.7%) were the most common skin and subcutaneous tissue AEs reported in children. Skin and subcutaneous AEs were more common with upadacitinib (21.1%), abrocitinib (9.1%), and tofacitinib (6.3%) in children.
• Serious AEs included in the boxed warning for JAK inhibitors — serious infection, mortality, malignancy, cardiovascular events, and thrombosis — were similar for baricitinib in children (4 of 49 patients, 8.2%) and adults (325 of 3707, 8.8%). For other JAK inhibitors, absolute numbers of these AEs in children were small and rates were lower in children than in adults.

IN PRACTICE:

“This information can support customized treatment and minimize the potential for undesired or intolerable AEs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Sahithi Talasila, BS, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and was published online in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Pharmacovigilance registries did not fully capture the complete range of AEs because of potential reporting bias or recall bias. Additionally, events lacking sufficient objective evidence were underreported, while common AEs associated with JAK inhibitor therapy were overreported.

DISCLOSURES:

No specific funding sources for the study were reported. One author reported being a consultant, one reported serving as a principal investigator in clinical trials, and another reported serving on data and safety monitoring boards of various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Reports of blood and lymphatic disorders were higher in pediatric patients treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors than in adults in a review of US and Canadian adverse event (AE) data, which also found that acne was the most common skin-related AE in children, and serious AEs were less common.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed 399,649 AEs in 133,216 adult patients and 2883 AEs in 955 pediatric patients (age, < 18 years) from November 2011 to February 2023 using the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System and the Canada Vigilance Adverse Reaction Online Database.
• AEs were categorized on the basis of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities system organ class.
• Five JAK inhibitors approved for use in children were included in the study: Baricitinib, upadacitinib, abrocitinib, ruxolitinib, and tofacitinib.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most frequently reported AEs in children were blood and lymphatic system disorders, including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia (24%); viral, fungal, and bacterial infections, such as pneumonia and sepsis (17.2%); constitutional symptoms and administrative concerns, including pyrexia and fatigue (15.7%); gastrointestinal disorders, such as vomiting and abdominal pain (13.6%); and respiratory disorders, such as cough and respiratory distress (5.3%).
• In adults, the most common AEs were viral, fungal, and bacterial infections (16.8%); constitutional symptoms and administrative concerns (13.5%); musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (7.04%); and gastrointestinal (5.8%) and nervous system (5%) disorders.
• Acne (30.6%), atopic dermatitis (22.2%), and psoriasis (16.7%) were the most common skin and subcutaneous tissue AEs reported in children. Skin and subcutaneous AEs were more common with upadacitinib (21.1%), abrocitinib (9.1%), and tofacitinib (6.3%) in children.
• Serious AEs included in the boxed warning for JAK inhibitors — serious infection, mortality, malignancy, cardiovascular events, and thrombosis — were similar for baricitinib in children (4 of 49 patients, 8.2%) and adults (325 of 3707, 8.8%). For other JAK inhibitors, absolute numbers of these AEs in children were small and rates were lower in children than in adults.

IN PRACTICE:

“This information can support customized treatment and minimize the potential for undesired or intolerable AEs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Sahithi Talasila, BS, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and was published online in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Pharmacovigilance registries did not fully capture the complete range of AEs because of potential reporting bias or recall bias. Additionally, events lacking sufficient objective evidence were underreported, while common AEs associated with JAK inhibitor therapy were overreported.

DISCLOSURES:

No specific funding sources for the study were reported. One author reported being a consultant, one reported serving as a principal investigator in clinical trials, and another reported serving on data and safety monitoring boards of various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.