The Amplatzer Amulet (Abbott) and first-generation Watchman 2.5 (Boston Scientific) devices provide relatively comparable results out to 3 years after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), longer follow-up from the Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Versus Watchman Device for Stroke Prophylaxis (Amulet IDE) trial shows.

“The dual-seal Amplatzer Amulet left atrial appendage occluder continued to demonstrate safety and effectiveness through 3 years,” principal investigator Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, said in a late-breaking session at the recent Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

Preliminary results, reported last year, showed that procedural complications were higher with the Amplatzer but that it provided superior closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) at 45 days and was noninferior with respect to safety at 12 months and efficacy at 18 months.

Amulet IDE is the largest head-to-head comparison of the two devices, enrolling 1,878 high-risk patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation undergoing LAA closure to reduce the risk of stroke.

Three-year follow-up was higher with the Amulet device than with the Watchman, at 721 vs. 659 patients, driven by increased deaths (85 vs. 63) and withdrawals (50 vs. 23) in the Watchman group within 18 months, noted Dr. Lakkireddy, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, Kan.

Use of oral anticoagulation was higher in the Watchman group at 6 months (2.8% vs. 4.7%; P = .04), 18 months (3.1% vs. 5.6%; P = .01), and 3 years (3.7% vs. 7.3%; P < .01).

This was primarily driven by more late device-related thrombus (DRT) after 6 months with the Watchman device than with the Amulet occluder (23 vs. 10). “Perhaps the dual-closure mechanism of the Amulet explains this fundamental difference, where you have a nice smooth disc that covers the ostium,” he posited.

At 3 years, rates of cardiovascular death trended lower with Amulet than with Watchman (6.6% vs. 8.5%; P = .14), as did all-cause deaths (14.6% vs. 17.9%; P = .07).

Most cardiovascular deaths in the Amulet group were not preceded by a device factor, whereas DRT (1 vs. 4) and peridevice leak 3 mm or more (5 vs. 15) frequently preceded these deaths in the Watchman group, Dr. Lakkireddy observed. No pericardial effusion-related deaths occurred in either group.

Major bleeding, however, trended higher for the Amulet, at 16.1%, compared with 14.7% for the Watchman (P = .46). Ischemic stroke and systemic embolic rates also trended higher for Amulet, at 5%, and 4.6% for Watchman.

The protocol recommended aspirin only for both groups after 6 months. None of the 29 Amulet and 3 of the 29 Watchman patients with an ischemic stroke were on oral anticoagulation at the time of the stroke.

Device factors, however, frequently preceded ischemic strokes in the Watchman group, Dr. Lakkireddy said. DRT occurred in 1 patient with Amulet and 2 patients with Watchman and peridevice leak in 3 with Amulet and 15 with Watchman. “Again, the peridevice leak issue really stands out as an important factor,” he said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Based on “data from the large trials, it’s clearly evident that the presence of peridevice leak significantly raises the risk of stroke in follow-up,” he said. “So, attention has to be paid to the choice of the device and how we can mitigate the risk of peridevice leaks in these patients.”

The composite of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death occurred in 11.1% of patients with Amulet and 12.7% with Watchman (P = .31).

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

The Amplatzer Amulet (Abbott) and first-generation Watchman 2.5 (Boston Scientific) devices provide relatively comparable results out to 3 years after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), longer follow-up from the Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Versus Watchman Device for Stroke Prophylaxis (Amulet IDE) trial shows.

“The dual-seal Amplatzer Amulet left atrial appendage occluder continued to demonstrate safety and effectiveness through 3 years,” principal investigator Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, said in a late-breaking session at the recent Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

Preliminary results, reported last year, showed that procedural complications were higher with the Amplatzer but that it provided superior closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) at 45 days and was noninferior with respect to safety at 12 months and efficacy at 18 months.

Amulet IDE is the largest head-to-head comparison of the two devices, enrolling 1,878 high-risk patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation undergoing LAA closure to reduce the risk of stroke.

Three-year follow-up was higher with the Amulet device than with the Watchman, at 721 vs. 659 patients, driven by increased deaths (85 vs. 63) and withdrawals (50 vs. 23) in the Watchman group within 18 months, noted Dr. Lakkireddy, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, Kan.

Use of oral anticoagulation was higher in the Watchman group at 6 months (2.8% vs. 4.7%; P = .04), 18 months (3.1% vs. 5.6%; P = .01), and 3 years (3.7% vs. 7.3%; P < .01).

This was primarily driven by more late device-related thrombus (DRT) after 6 months with the Watchman device than with the Amulet occluder (23 vs. 10). “Perhaps the dual-closure mechanism of the Amulet explains this fundamental difference, where you have a nice smooth disc that covers the ostium,” he posited.

At 3 years, rates of cardiovascular death trended lower with Amulet than with Watchman (6.6% vs. 8.5%; P = .14), as did all-cause deaths (14.6% vs. 17.9%; P = .07).

Most cardiovascular deaths in the Amulet group were not preceded by a device factor, whereas DRT (1 vs. 4) and peridevice leak 3 mm or more (5 vs. 15) frequently preceded these deaths in the Watchman group, Dr. Lakkireddy observed. No pericardial effusion-related deaths occurred in either group.

Major bleeding, however, trended higher for the Amulet, at 16.1%, compared with 14.7% for the Watchman (P = .46). Ischemic stroke and systemic embolic rates also trended higher for Amulet, at 5%, and 4.6% for Watchman.

The protocol recommended aspirin only for both groups after 6 months. None of the 29 Amulet and 3 of the 29 Watchman patients with an ischemic stroke were on oral anticoagulation at the time of the stroke.

Device factors, however, frequently preceded ischemic strokes in the Watchman group, Dr. Lakkireddy said. DRT occurred in 1 patient with Amulet and 2 patients with Watchman and peridevice leak in 3 with Amulet and 15 with Watchman. “Again, the peridevice leak issue really stands out as an important factor,” he said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Based on “data from the large trials, it’s clearly evident that the presence of peridevice leak significantly raises the risk of stroke in follow-up,” he said. “So, attention has to be paid to the choice of the device and how we can mitigate the risk of peridevice leaks in these patients.”

The composite of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death occurred in 11.1% of patients with Amulet and 12.7% with Watchman (P = .31).

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

The Amplatzer Amulet (Abbott) and first-generation Watchman 2.5 (Boston Scientific) devices provide relatively comparable results out to 3 years after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), longer follow-up from the Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Versus Watchman Device for Stroke Prophylaxis (Amulet IDE) trial shows.

“The dual-seal Amplatzer Amulet left atrial appendage occluder continued to demonstrate safety and effectiveness through 3 years,” principal investigator Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, said in a late-breaking session at the recent Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

Preliminary results, reported last year, showed that procedural complications were higher with the Amplatzer but that it provided superior closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) at 45 days and was noninferior with respect to safety at 12 months and efficacy at 18 months.

Amulet IDE is the largest head-to-head comparison of the two devices, enrolling 1,878 high-risk patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation undergoing LAA closure to reduce the risk of stroke.

Three-year follow-up was higher with the Amulet device than with the Watchman, at 721 vs. 659 patients, driven by increased deaths (85 vs. 63) and withdrawals (50 vs. 23) in the Watchman group within 18 months, noted Dr. Lakkireddy, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, Kan.

Use of oral anticoagulation was higher in the Watchman group at 6 months (2.8% vs. 4.7%; P = .04), 18 months (3.1% vs. 5.6%; P = .01), and 3 years (3.7% vs. 7.3%; P < .01).

This was primarily driven by more late device-related thrombus (DRT) after 6 months with the Watchman device than with the Amulet occluder (23 vs. 10). “Perhaps the dual-closure mechanism of the Amulet explains this fundamental difference, where you have a nice smooth disc that covers the ostium,” he posited.

At 3 years, rates of cardiovascular death trended lower with Amulet than with Watchman (6.6% vs. 8.5%; P = .14), as did all-cause deaths (14.6% vs. 17.9%; P = .07).

Most cardiovascular deaths in the Amulet group were not preceded by a device factor, whereas DRT (1 vs. 4) and peridevice leak 3 mm or more (5 vs. 15) frequently preceded these deaths in the Watchman group, Dr. Lakkireddy observed. No pericardial effusion-related deaths occurred in either group.

Major bleeding, however, trended higher for the Amulet, at 16.1%, compared with 14.7% for the Watchman (P = .46). Ischemic stroke and systemic embolic rates also trended higher for Amulet, at 5%, and 4.6% for Watchman.

The protocol recommended aspirin only for both groups after 6 months. None of the 29 Amulet and 3 of the 29 Watchman patients with an ischemic stroke were on oral anticoagulation at the time of the stroke.

Device factors, however, frequently preceded ischemic strokes in the Watchman group, Dr. Lakkireddy said. DRT occurred in 1 patient with Amulet and 2 patients with Watchman and peridevice leak in 3 with Amulet and 15 with Watchman. “Again, the peridevice leak issue really stands out as an important factor,” he said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Based on “data from the large trials, it’s clearly evident that the presence of peridevice leak significantly raises the risk of stroke in follow-up,” he said. “So, attention has to be paid to the choice of the device and how we can mitigate the risk of peridevice leaks in these patients.”

The composite of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death occurred in 11.1% of patients with Amulet and 12.7% with Watchman (P = .31).

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

PORTLAND, ORE. – About 10 years ago when Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, became an attending physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, he noticed that some of his dermatology colleagues checked the potassium levels religiously in their female patients taking spironolactone, while others never did.

“It led to this question: should we check potassium in healthy young women starting spironolactone for acne?” Dr. Mostaghimi, director of the dermatology inpatient service at Brigham and Women’s, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

To find out, he and his colleagues reviewed 1,802 serum potassium measurements in a study of healthy young women with no known health conditions who were taking spironolactone, published in 2015. They discovered that 13 of those tests suggested mild hyperkalemia, defined as a level greater than 5.0 mEq/L. Of these, six were rechecked and were normal; no action was taken in the other seven patients.

“This led us to conclude that we spent $78,000 at our institution on testing that did not appear to yield clinically significant information for these patients, and that routine potassium monitoring is unnecessary for most women taking spironolactone for acne,” he said. Their findings have been validated “in many cohorts of data,” he added.

The study serves as an example of efforts dermatologists can take to curb unnecessary costs within the field to be “appropriate stewards of resources,” he continued. “We have to think about the ratio of benefit over cost. It’s not just about the cost, it’s about what you’re getting for the amount of money that you’re spending. The idea of this is not restricting or not giving people medications or access to things that they need. The idea is to do it in a thoughtful way that works across the population.”
 

Value thresholds

Determining the value thresholds of a particular medicine or procedure is also essential to good dermatology practice. To illustrate, Dr. Mostaghimi cited a prospective cohort study that compared treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in 1,536 consecutive patients with nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) with and without limited life expectancy. More than two-thirds of the NMSCs (69%) were treated surgically. After adjusting for tumor and patient characteristics, the researchers found that 43% of patients with low life expectancy died within 5 years, but not from NMSC.

“Does that mean we shouldn’t do surgery for NMSC patients with low life expectancy?” he asked. “Should we do it less? Should we let the patients decide? It’s complicated. As a society, we have to decide what’s worth doing and what’s not worth doing,” he said. “What about old diseases with new treatments, like alopecia areata? Is alopecia areata a cosmetic condition? Dermatologists and patients wouldn’t classify it that way, but many insurers do. How do you negotiate that?”

In 2013, the American Academy of Dermatology identified 10 evidence-based recommendations that can support conversations between patients and dermatologists about treatments, tests, and procedures that may not be necessary. One of the recommendations was not to prescribe oral antifungal therapy for suspected nail fungus without confirmation of fungal infection.

“If a clinician thinks a patient has onychomycosis, he or she is usually right,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “But what’s the added cost/benefit of performing a KOH followed by PAS testing if negative or performing a PAS test directly versus just treating the patient?”

In 2006, he and his colleagues published the results of a decision analysis to address these questions. They determined that the costs of testing to avoid one case of clinically apparent liver injury with terbinafine treatment was $18.2-$43.7 million for the KOH screening pathway and $37.6 to $90.2 million for the PAS testing pathway.

“Is that worth it?” he asked. “Would we get more value for spending the money elsewhere? In this case, the answer is most likely yes.”

Isotretinoin lab testing

Translating research into recommendations and standards of care is one way to help curb costs in dermatology. As an example, he cited lab monitoring for patients treated with isotretinoin for acne.

“There have been a number of papers over the years that have suggested that the number of labs we do is excessive, that the value that they provide is low, and that abnormal results do not impact our decision-making,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “Do some patients on isotretinoin get mildly elevated [liver function tests] and hypertriglyceridemia? Yes, that happens. Does it matter? Nothing has demonstrated that it matters. Does it matter that an 18-year-old has high triglycerides for 6 months? Rarely, if ever.”

To promote a new approach, he and a panel of acne experts from five continents performed a Delphi consensus study. Based on their consensus, they proposed a simple approach: For “generally healthy patients without underlying abnormalities or preexisting conditions warranting further investigation,” check ALT and triglycerides prior to initiating isotretinoin. Then start isotretinoin.

“At the peak dose, recheck ALT and triglycerides – this might be at month 2,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “Other people wait a little bit longer. No labs are required once treatment is complete. Of course, adjust this approach based on your assessment of the patient in front of you. None of these recommendations should replace your clinical judgment and intuition.”

He proposed a new paradigm where dermatologists can ask themselves three questions for every patient they see: Why is this intervention or test being done? Why is it being done in this patient? And why do it at that time? “If we think this way, we can identify some inconsistencies in our own thinking and opportunities for improvement,” he said.

Dr. Mostaghimi reported that he is a consultant to Pfizer, Concert, Lilly, and Bioniz. He is also an advisor to Him & Hers Cosmetics and Digital Diagnostics and is an associate editor for JAMA Dermatology.

PORTLAND, ORE. – About 10 years ago when Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, became an attending physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, he noticed that some of his dermatology colleagues checked the potassium levels religiously in their female patients taking spironolactone, while others never did.

“It led to this question: should we check potassium in healthy young women starting spironolactone for acne?” Dr. Mostaghimi, director of the dermatology inpatient service at Brigham and Women’s, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

To find out, he and his colleagues reviewed 1,802 serum potassium measurements in a study of healthy young women with no known health conditions who were taking spironolactone, published in 2015. They discovered that 13 of those tests suggested mild hyperkalemia, defined as a level greater than 5.0 mEq/L. Of these, six were rechecked and were normal; no action was taken in the other seven patients.

“This led us to conclude that we spent $78,000 at our institution on testing that did not appear to yield clinically significant information for these patients, and that routine potassium monitoring is unnecessary for most women taking spironolactone for acne,” he said. Their findings have been validated “in many cohorts of data,” he added.

The study serves as an example of efforts dermatologists can take to curb unnecessary costs within the field to be “appropriate stewards of resources,” he continued. “We have to think about the ratio of benefit over cost. It’s not just about the cost, it’s about what you’re getting for the amount of money that you’re spending. The idea of this is not restricting or not giving people medications or access to things that they need. The idea is to do it in a thoughtful way that works across the population.”
 

Value thresholds

Determining the value thresholds of a particular medicine or procedure is also essential to good dermatology practice. To illustrate, Dr. Mostaghimi cited a prospective cohort study that compared treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in 1,536 consecutive patients with nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) with and without limited life expectancy. More than two-thirds of the NMSCs (69%) were treated surgically. After adjusting for tumor and patient characteristics, the researchers found that 43% of patients with low life expectancy died within 5 years, but not from NMSC.

“Does that mean we shouldn’t do surgery for NMSC patients with low life expectancy?” he asked. “Should we do it less? Should we let the patients decide? It’s complicated. As a society, we have to decide what’s worth doing and what’s not worth doing,” he said. “What about old diseases with new treatments, like alopecia areata? Is alopecia areata a cosmetic condition? Dermatologists and patients wouldn’t classify it that way, but many insurers do. How do you negotiate that?”

In 2013, the American Academy of Dermatology identified 10 evidence-based recommendations that can support conversations between patients and dermatologists about treatments, tests, and procedures that may not be necessary. One of the recommendations was not to prescribe oral antifungal therapy for suspected nail fungus without confirmation of fungal infection.

“If a clinician thinks a patient has onychomycosis, he or she is usually right,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “But what’s the added cost/benefit of performing a KOH followed by PAS testing if negative or performing a PAS test directly versus just treating the patient?”

In 2006, he and his colleagues published the results of a decision analysis to address these questions. They determined that the costs of testing to avoid one case of clinically apparent liver injury with terbinafine treatment was $18.2-$43.7 million for the KOH screening pathway and $37.6 to $90.2 million for the PAS testing pathway.

“Is that worth it?” he asked. “Would we get more value for spending the money elsewhere? In this case, the answer is most likely yes.”

Isotretinoin lab testing

Translating research into recommendations and standards of care is one way to help curb costs in dermatology. As an example, he cited lab monitoring for patients treated with isotretinoin for acne.

“There have been a number of papers over the years that have suggested that the number of labs we do is excessive, that the value that they provide is low, and that abnormal results do not impact our decision-making,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “Do some patients on isotretinoin get mildly elevated [liver function tests] and hypertriglyceridemia? Yes, that happens. Does it matter? Nothing has demonstrated that it matters. Does it matter that an 18-year-old has high triglycerides for 6 months? Rarely, if ever.”

To promote a new approach, he and a panel of acne experts from five continents performed a Delphi consensus study. Based on their consensus, they proposed a simple approach: For “generally healthy patients without underlying abnormalities or preexisting conditions warranting further investigation,” check ALT and triglycerides prior to initiating isotretinoin. Then start isotretinoin.

“At the peak dose, recheck ALT and triglycerides – this might be at month 2,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “Other people wait a little bit longer. No labs are required once treatment is complete. Of course, adjust this approach based on your assessment of the patient in front of you. None of these recommendations should replace your clinical judgment and intuition.”

He proposed a new paradigm where dermatologists can ask themselves three questions for every patient they see: Why is this intervention or test being done? Why is it being done in this patient? And why do it at that time? “If we think this way, we can identify some inconsistencies in our own thinking and opportunities for improvement,” he said.

Dr. Mostaghimi reported that he is a consultant to Pfizer, Concert, Lilly, and Bioniz. He is also an advisor to Him & Hers Cosmetics and Digital Diagnostics and is an associate editor for JAMA Dermatology.

PORTLAND, ORE. – About 10 years ago when Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, became an attending physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, he noticed that some of his dermatology colleagues checked the potassium levels religiously in their female patients taking spironolactone, while others never did.

“It led to this question: should we check potassium in healthy young women starting spironolactone for acne?” Dr. Mostaghimi, director of the dermatology inpatient service at Brigham and Women’s, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

To find out, he and his colleagues reviewed 1,802 serum potassium measurements in a study of healthy young women with no known health conditions who were taking spironolactone, published in 2015. They discovered that 13 of those tests suggested mild hyperkalemia, defined as a level greater than 5.0 mEq/L. Of these, six were rechecked and were normal; no action was taken in the other seven patients.

“This led us to conclude that we spent $78,000 at our institution on testing that did not appear to yield clinically significant information for these patients, and that routine potassium monitoring is unnecessary for most women taking spironolactone for acne,” he said. Their findings have been validated “in many cohorts of data,” he added.

The study serves as an example of efforts dermatologists can take to curb unnecessary costs within the field to be “appropriate stewards of resources,” he continued. “We have to think about the ratio of benefit over cost. It’s not just about the cost, it’s about what you’re getting for the amount of money that you’re spending. The idea of this is not restricting or not giving people medications or access to things that they need. The idea is to do it in a thoughtful way that works across the population.”
 

Value thresholds

Determining the value thresholds of a particular medicine or procedure is also essential to good dermatology practice. To illustrate, Dr. Mostaghimi cited a prospective cohort study that compared treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in 1,536 consecutive patients with nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) with and without limited life expectancy. More than two-thirds of the NMSCs (69%) were treated surgically. After adjusting for tumor and patient characteristics, the researchers found that 43% of patients with low life expectancy died within 5 years, but not from NMSC.

“Does that mean we shouldn’t do surgery for NMSC patients with low life expectancy?” he asked. “Should we do it less? Should we let the patients decide? It’s complicated. As a society, we have to decide what’s worth doing and what’s not worth doing,” he said. “What about old diseases with new treatments, like alopecia areata? Is alopecia areata a cosmetic condition? Dermatologists and patients wouldn’t classify it that way, but many insurers do. How do you negotiate that?”

In 2013, the American Academy of Dermatology identified 10 evidence-based recommendations that can support conversations between patients and dermatologists about treatments, tests, and procedures that may not be necessary. One of the recommendations was not to prescribe oral antifungal therapy for suspected nail fungus without confirmation of fungal infection.

“If a clinician thinks a patient has onychomycosis, he or she is usually right,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “But what’s the added cost/benefit of performing a KOH followed by PAS testing if negative or performing a PAS test directly versus just treating the patient?”

In 2006, he and his colleagues published the results of a decision analysis to address these questions. They determined that the costs of testing to avoid one case of clinically apparent liver injury with terbinafine treatment was $18.2-$43.7 million for the KOH screening pathway and $37.6 to $90.2 million for the PAS testing pathway.

“Is that worth it?” he asked. “Would we get more value for spending the money elsewhere? In this case, the answer is most likely yes.”

Isotretinoin lab testing

Translating research into recommendations and standards of care is one way to help curb costs in dermatology. As an example, he cited lab monitoring for patients treated with isotretinoin for acne.

“There have been a number of papers over the years that have suggested that the number of labs we do is excessive, that the value that they provide is low, and that abnormal results do not impact our decision-making,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “Do some patients on isotretinoin get mildly elevated [liver function tests] and hypertriglyceridemia? Yes, that happens. Does it matter? Nothing has demonstrated that it matters. Does it matter that an 18-year-old has high triglycerides for 6 months? Rarely, if ever.”

To promote a new approach, he and a panel of acne experts from five continents performed a Delphi consensus study. Based on their consensus, they proposed a simple approach: For “generally healthy patients without underlying abnormalities or preexisting conditions warranting further investigation,” check ALT and triglycerides prior to initiating isotretinoin. Then start isotretinoin.

“At the peak dose, recheck ALT and triglycerides – this might be at month 2,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “Other people wait a little bit longer. No labs are required once treatment is complete. Of course, adjust this approach based on your assessment of the patient in front of you. None of these recommendations should replace your clinical judgment and intuition.”

He proposed a new paradigm where dermatologists can ask themselves three questions for every patient they see: Why is this intervention or test being done? Why is it being done in this patient? And why do it at that time? “If we think this way, we can identify some inconsistencies in our own thinking and opportunities for improvement,” he said.

Dr. Mostaghimi reported that he is a consultant to Pfizer, Concert, Lilly, and Bioniz. He is also an advisor to Him & Hers Cosmetics and Digital Diagnostics and is an associate editor for JAMA Dermatology.

Kashyap Patel, MD, followed an unconventional path to becoming a nationally known oncologist. A former news photographer in his native India, Dr. Patel has practiced medicine on three continents.

In 2020, he published a book aimed at cancer specialists and their patients on how to die “with hope and dignity,” titled “Between Life and Death” (Penguin Random House India).

When Dr. Patel, the CEO of Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates in Rock Hill, S.C., became president of the Washington-based Community Oncology Alliance 2 years ago, he stepped into a leadership role in community oncology. As an advocate for health care payment reform on Capitol Hill, the South Carolina legislature, and within his own practice, Dr. Patel has long worked to eliminate disparities in U.S. cancer care.

This news organization spoke with Dr. Patel about his unusual career path.
 

Question: Your father had a great influence on you. Can you tell us more about him?

Answer: My dad was a hermit and a saint. He lost his dad when he was 4 years old and moved to the big city with his cousins. When he was 9 or so, he got a message saying that his mum was very ill. So, he and his cousin raised some money, got a doctor and one of those old, rugged jeeps, and they started driving to the village, but rains had destroyed the road. So, without penicillin, his mum died of pneumonia.

He felt that roads and doctor access were the two big factors that could have saved her life. He eventually became the Superintending Engineer for four districts in Gujarat State, building roads connecting every village, but he never gave up his simplistic, minimalist life.

When I was in elementary school, every other weekend my dad would literally dump me at the Mahatma Gandhi Ashram and come back in 2 hours. So, I’m looking at Gandhi’s cabinets, his pictures, reading about his life. So, my formative years were born in that.
 

Q: I read that you were intending to become an engineer and join the space race. How did your father nudge you toward medicine?

A: When I was 9 years old, my favorite movie hero died of cancer. To comfort me, my father inserted the idea into my brain: When you grow up, you can become a doctor to cure cancer. So, when I finished high school, I was 24th in the state and had an option to go to the space school in India. On the day when I was going for the interview, I could see tears in my father’s eyes, and he said, You know what, boy? I thought you’re going to become a doctor and cure cancer. So, to honor him, I went to med school instead.

Courtesty Dr. Kashyap Patel

Q: I understand that your father also triggered your interest in photography?

A: I started photographing Kutchi tribal people in 1977, after I bought a camera from a famous architect [Hasmukh Patel], while traveling with my dad. And then my dad bought me a motorcycle, so I started riding myself. From the time I entered med school in 1978 until I finished my residency in 1987, I made several trips following Kutchi migrant families and livestock. They leave their homeland in Kutch [district] during summer in search of grass and water to keep their livestock alive and walk across the state from the desert of Kutch all the way to central Gujarat until monsoon begins. Then they return, only to resume the journey next year. I would catch them along their journey, would talk to them, drink tea and eat millet crepes with them.

Courtesy Dr. Kashyap Patel

In 1984, between Dr. Patel’s medical school and residency, the Lions Club in his hometown, Ahmedabad, India, sponsored him and three buddies to document people and wildlife in Gujarat state. Traveling by motorcycle, the four friends stayed for free with local families by knocking on doors and explaining that they were medical students. Dr. Patel’s photographs were exhibited by the Lions Club of Ahmedabad and at India’s top art institution, the Lalit Kala gallery.

In the 3rd year of his internal-medicine residency in Bombay (now Mumbai), Dr. Patel approached a national newspaper, The Indian Express, for work. He was immediately sent on assignment to cover a cholera epidemic and filed his story and photographs the following day. He worked as a photojournalist and subeditor for a year.
 

Courtesy Dr. Kashyap Patel

Q: Among all your thousands of pictures, do you have a favorite?

A: There were two photos of Kutchi people that touched me. There was one photo of a lady. All of her worldly belongings were in the picture and a smile on her face showed that we don’t need so many things to be happy. The second photo is of an elderly lady shifting her water pan on her head to a younger family member. And a little girl looks up with a look of curiosity: Will I be doing this when I grow up? We seek so much materialistic happiness. But when you look at the curiosity, smiles, and happiness [in these photos], you realize we could have a lot of happiness in minimalism, as well.

Q: After you finished your residency in Ahmedabad, how did you get started in oncology?

A: In 1986, Ahmedabad City and Gujarat State did not have structured training programs in oncology, so I went to Bombay [Mumbai], where Dr. B.C. Mehta, a true legend and pioneer in India, had started hematology-oncology training. I was a post-doc research fellow with him for a little over a year but when I started seeing patients, I had to answer to myself, Am I doing everything I can to help these people? I saw that the U.K. had one of the best training programs in hem malignancy, so I started applying. Then something happened that was almost like a miracle.

In April 1992, Dr. Patel was working at the Institute of Kidney Diseases in Ahmedabad. One afternoon, just as the clinic was closing for siesta, a family brought in a young girl. She had drug-induced thrombocytopenia and needed an immediate transfusion. The father offered to sell his wedding ring to pay Dr. Patel if he would supervise the treatment and stay by the girl’s side. Dr. Patel told the man to keep his ring, then he remained in the office with the child. At 4 p.m., the office phone rang. It was Dr. H.K. Parikh, an eminent British physician who was wintering in India and needed to make a medical appointment for his wife. On a normal day, Dr. Patel would have missed the call.

“This is how I got to meet Dr. Parikh, out of the blue,” said Dr. Patel. “His wife came to the office for 6 weeks and after 6 weeks, he said, You’re a smart guy; you should come to England. That was in April. I sent a resume and all the usual paperwork. On July 16, 1992, at 2 in the morning, I got a call from the U.K. saying, Your job is confirmed. I’m going to fax your appointment through the Royal College of Physicians, and you’re coming to Manchester to work with us. I’d been sponsored by the Overseas Doctors Training Program.

“So, it turns out that if I’d declined to see that patient and declined to stay in my clinic that afternoon, if I’d declined to see this doctor’s wife, I would never have been in the U.K. And that opened up the doors for me. I like that story because I’ve found that standing up for people who do not have a voice, who do not have hope, always leads to what is destined for me.”
 

Q: After working as a registrar in the United Kingdom 4 years, you found yourself in the United States and, once again, had to train as an internist. What was new about U.S. oncology?

A: I took 3 years to get recertified in Jamaica Hospital in Queens, then became a fellow in hematology-oncology at the Thomas Jefferson in Philadelphia. My U.K. training was all based on hematological malignancy. In the United States, I shifted into solid tumors.

Q: You have a long history of advocating for affordable oncology at the community, state, and federal level, and you recently launched a disparities initiative in your center called NOLA (No One Left Alone). What was the trigger for NOLA?

A: In the spring of 2020, when we started seeing the COVID surge and the difference in mortality rate between the multiple races, at the same time I saw the AACR [American Association for Cancer Research] 2020 disparity report showing that 34% of cancer deaths are preventable – one in three – if we took care of disparities. The same year, the Community Oncology Alliance asked me to become the president. So, I felt that there is something herding me, leading me, to this position. Eighty percent of cancer patients are treated in community clinics like ours. It put the onus on me to do something.

I learned from Gandhi that I cannot depend on government, I cannot depend on the policy, I have to act myself.

I said, I would not worry about making money, I would rather lose funding on this. So, we started. I read 400+ papers; I spent over 1,000 hours reading about disparities. And I realized that it’s not complicated. There are five pillars to eliminate disparity: access to care for financial reasons, access to biomarker testing or precision medicine, access to social determinants of health, access to cancer screening, and trials. If we focus on these five, we can at least bring that number from 34% to 20%, if not lower.

So, we put that plan in place. I dedicated three employees whose only role is to ensure that not a single patient has to take financial burden from my practice. And we showed it’s doable.

This has now become my mission for the last quarter of my life.
 

In 2020, Dr. Patel published a book on dying well titled “Between Life and Death.” It’s framed as a series of his conversations with a former patient, Harry Falls. Harry wanted to understand death better, so Dr. Patel narrated five patient stories, drawing the threads together to help Harry face the inevitable. Dr. Patel now uses a similar approach to train clinicians on having meaningful end-of-life conversations with patients.

Courtesy Dr. Kashyap Patel

Q: Why did you feel the need to write a book about dying?

A: The more I’ve witnessed, the more I’m convinced that there are things that we don’t know about this process, which needs to be explored much more. However, I do feel that there’s a power within all of us to steer the process of leaving this world.

Before I sat down with Harry, I loved to counsel patients, but I didn’t have any structural ideas. It was Harry himself who told me that I now had a simple way to explain dying to a much larger audience.
 

Q: What is your secret for fitting everything into your life?

A: I’ll tell you, it’s very simple. If I put my soul, heart, mind, actions, and language on the one plane and don’t let my brain and conditioning influence my choices, then I live in the moment. Whenever I let my conditioned mind take all the decisions, those are crooked, because you know, we’re selfish creatures – we can use what we call the convenient lie to hide inconvenient truth. And I try not to do that. I mean, it’s been a journey. It didn’t come overnight. I learned. And I feel that over all these years, the only thing that rewarded me, that opened the door of where I am today, was pure, selfless process, whether it’s the act of talking, speaking, or doing.

Kashyap Patel, MD, followed an unconventional path to becoming a nationally known oncologist. A former news photographer in his native India, Dr. Patel has practiced medicine on three continents.

In 2020, he published a book aimed at cancer specialists and their patients on how to die “with hope and dignity,” titled “Between Life and Death” (Penguin Random House India).

When Dr. Patel, the CEO of Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates in Rock Hill, S.C., became president of the Washington-based Community Oncology Alliance 2 years ago, he stepped into a leadership role in community oncology. As an advocate for health care payment reform on Capitol Hill, the South Carolina legislature, and within his own practice, Dr. Patel has long worked to eliminate disparities in U.S. cancer care.

This news organization spoke with Dr. Patel about his unusual career path.
 

Question: Your father had a great influence on you. Can you tell us more about him?

Answer: My dad was a hermit and a saint. He lost his dad when he was 4 years old and moved to the big city with his cousins. When he was 9 or so, he got a message saying that his mum was very ill. So, he and his cousin raised some money, got a doctor and one of those old, rugged jeeps, and they started driving to the village, but rains had destroyed the road. So, without penicillin, his mum died of pneumonia.

He felt that roads and doctor access were the two big factors that could have saved her life. He eventually became the Superintending Engineer for four districts in Gujarat State, building roads connecting every village, but he never gave up his simplistic, minimalist life.

When I was in elementary school, every other weekend my dad would literally dump me at the Mahatma Gandhi Ashram and come back in 2 hours. So, I’m looking at Gandhi’s cabinets, his pictures, reading about his life. So, my formative years were born in that.
 

Q: I read that you were intending to become an engineer and join the space race. How did your father nudge you toward medicine?

A: When I was 9 years old, my favorite movie hero died of cancer. To comfort me, my father inserted the idea into my brain: When you grow up, you can become a doctor to cure cancer. So, when I finished high school, I was 24th in the state and had an option to go to the space school in India. On the day when I was going for the interview, I could see tears in my father’s eyes, and he said, You know what, boy? I thought you’re going to become a doctor and cure cancer. So, to honor him, I went to med school instead.

Courtesty Dr. Kashyap Patel

Q: I understand that your father also triggered your interest in photography?

A: I started photographing Kutchi tribal people in 1977, after I bought a camera from a famous architect [Hasmukh Patel], while traveling with my dad. And then my dad bought me a motorcycle, so I started riding myself. From the time I entered med school in 1978 until I finished my residency in 1987, I made several trips following Kutchi migrant families and livestock. They leave their homeland in Kutch [district] during summer in search of grass and water to keep their livestock alive and walk across the state from the desert of Kutch all the way to central Gujarat until monsoon begins. Then they return, only to resume the journey next year. I would catch them along their journey, would talk to them, drink tea and eat millet crepes with them.

Courtesy Dr. Kashyap Patel

In 1984, between Dr. Patel’s medical school and residency, the Lions Club in his hometown, Ahmedabad, India, sponsored him and three buddies to document people and wildlife in Gujarat state. Traveling by motorcycle, the four friends stayed for free with local families by knocking on doors and explaining that they were medical students. Dr. Patel’s photographs were exhibited by the Lions Club of Ahmedabad and at India’s top art institution, the Lalit Kala gallery.

In the 3rd year of his internal-medicine residency in Bombay (now Mumbai), Dr. Patel approached a national newspaper, The Indian Express, for work. He was immediately sent on assignment to cover a cholera epidemic and filed his story and photographs the following day. He worked as a photojournalist and subeditor for a year.
 

Courtesy Dr. Kashyap Patel

Q: Among all your thousands of pictures, do you have a favorite?

A: There were two photos of Kutchi people that touched me. There was one photo of a lady. All of her worldly belongings were in the picture and a smile on her face showed that we don’t need so many things to be happy. The second photo is of an elderly lady shifting her water pan on her head to a younger family member. And a little girl looks up with a look of curiosity: Will I be doing this when I grow up? We seek so much materialistic happiness. But when you look at the curiosity, smiles, and happiness [in these photos], you realize we could have a lot of happiness in minimalism, as well.

Q: After you finished your residency in Ahmedabad, how did you get started in oncology?

A: In 1986, Ahmedabad City and Gujarat State did not have structured training programs in oncology, so I went to Bombay [Mumbai], where Dr. B.C. Mehta, a true legend and pioneer in India, had started hematology-oncology training. I was a post-doc research fellow with him for a little over a year but when I started seeing patients, I had to answer to myself, Am I doing everything I can to help these people? I saw that the U.K. had one of the best training programs in hem malignancy, so I started applying. Then something happened that was almost like a miracle.

In April 1992, Dr. Patel was working at the Institute of Kidney Diseases in Ahmedabad. One afternoon, just as the clinic was closing for siesta, a family brought in a young girl. She had drug-induced thrombocytopenia and needed an immediate transfusion. The father offered to sell his wedding ring to pay Dr. Patel if he would supervise the treatment and stay by the girl’s side. Dr. Patel told the man to keep his ring, then he remained in the office with the child. At 4 p.m., the office phone rang. It was Dr. H.K. Parikh, an eminent British physician who was wintering in India and needed to make a medical appointment for his wife. On a normal day, Dr. Patel would have missed the call.

“This is how I got to meet Dr. Parikh, out of the blue,” said Dr. Patel. “His wife came to the office for 6 weeks and after 6 weeks, he said, You’re a smart guy; you should come to England. That was in April. I sent a resume and all the usual paperwork. On July 16, 1992, at 2 in the morning, I got a call from the U.K. saying, Your job is confirmed. I’m going to fax your appointment through the Royal College of Physicians, and you’re coming to Manchester to work with us. I’d been sponsored by the Overseas Doctors Training Program.

“So, it turns out that if I’d declined to see that patient and declined to stay in my clinic that afternoon, if I’d declined to see this doctor’s wife, I would never have been in the U.K. And that opened up the doors for me. I like that story because I’ve found that standing up for people who do not have a voice, who do not have hope, always leads to what is destined for me.”
 

Q: After working as a registrar in the United Kingdom 4 years, you found yourself in the United States and, once again, had to train as an internist. What was new about U.S. oncology?

A: I took 3 years to get recertified in Jamaica Hospital in Queens, then became a fellow in hematology-oncology at the Thomas Jefferson in Philadelphia. My U.K. training was all based on hematological malignancy. In the United States, I shifted into solid tumors.

Q: You have a long history of advocating for affordable oncology at the community, state, and federal level, and you recently launched a disparities initiative in your center called NOLA (No One Left Alone). What was the trigger for NOLA?

A: In the spring of 2020, when we started seeing the COVID surge and the difference in mortality rate between the multiple races, at the same time I saw the AACR [American Association for Cancer Research] 2020 disparity report showing that 34% of cancer deaths are preventable – one in three – if we took care of disparities. The same year, the Community Oncology Alliance asked me to become the president. So, I felt that there is something herding me, leading me, to this position. Eighty percent of cancer patients are treated in community clinics like ours. It put the onus on me to do something.

I learned from Gandhi that I cannot depend on government, I cannot depend on the policy, I have to act myself.

I said, I would not worry about making money, I would rather lose funding on this. So, we started. I read 400+ papers; I spent over 1,000 hours reading about disparities. And I realized that it’s not complicated. There are five pillars to eliminate disparity: access to care for financial reasons, access to biomarker testing or precision medicine, access to social determinants of health, access to cancer screening, and trials. If we focus on these five, we can at least bring that number from 34% to 20%, if not lower.

So, we put that plan in place. I dedicated three employees whose only role is to ensure that not a single patient has to take financial burden from my practice. And we showed it’s doable.

This has now become my mission for the last quarter of my life.
 

In 2020, Dr. Patel published a book on dying well titled “Between Life and Death.” It’s framed as a series of his conversations with a former patient, Harry Falls. Harry wanted to understand death better, so Dr. Patel narrated five patient stories, drawing the threads together to help Harry face the inevitable. Dr. Patel now uses a similar approach to train clinicians on having meaningful end-of-life conversations with patients.

Courtesy Dr. Kashyap Patel

Q: Why did you feel the need to write a book about dying?

A: The more I’ve witnessed, the more I’m convinced that there are things that we don’t know about this process, which needs to be explored much more. However, I do feel that there’s a power within all of us to steer the process of leaving this world.

Before I sat down with Harry, I loved to counsel patients, but I didn’t have any structural ideas. It was Harry himself who told me that I now had a simple way to explain dying to a much larger audience.
 

Q: What is your secret for fitting everything into your life?

A: I’ll tell you, it’s very simple. If I put my soul, heart, mind, actions, and language on the one plane and don’t let my brain and conditioning influence my choices, then I live in the moment. Whenever I let my conditioned mind take all the decisions, those are crooked, because you know, we’re selfish creatures – we can use what we call the convenient lie to hide inconvenient truth. And I try not to do that. I mean, it’s been a journey. It didn’t come overnight. I learned. And I feel that over all these years, the only thing that rewarded me, that opened the door of where I am today, was pure, selfless process, whether it’s the act of talking, speaking, or doing.

Kashyap Patel, MD, followed an unconventional path to becoming a nationally known oncologist. A former news photographer in his native India, Dr. Patel has practiced medicine on three continents.

In 2020, he published a book aimed at cancer specialists and their patients on how to die “with hope and dignity,” titled “Between Life and Death” (Penguin Random House India).

When Dr. Patel, the CEO of Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates in Rock Hill, S.C., became president of the Washington-based Community Oncology Alliance 2 years ago, he stepped into a leadership role in community oncology. As an advocate for health care payment reform on Capitol Hill, the South Carolina legislature, and within his own practice, Dr. Patel has long worked to eliminate disparities in U.S. cancer care.

This news organization spoke with Dr. Patel about his unusual career path.
 

Question: Your father had a great influence on you. Can you tell us more about him?

Answer: My dad was a hermit and a saint. He lost his dad when he was 4 years old and moved to the big city with his cousins. When he was 9 or so, he got a message saying that his mum was very ill. So, he and his cousin raised some money, got a doctor and one of those old, rugged jeeps, and they started driving to the village, but rains had destroyed the road. So, without penicillin, his mum died of pneumonia.

He felt that roads and doctor access were the two big factors that could have saved her life. He eventually became the Superintending Engineer for four districts in Gujarat State, building roads connecting every village, but he never gave up his simplistic, minimalist life.

When I was in elementary school, every other weekend my dad would literally dump me at the Mahatma Gandhi Ashram and come back in 2 hours. So, I’m looking at Gandhi’s cabinets, his pictures, reading about his life. So, my formative years were born in that.
 

Q: I read that you were intending to become an engineer and join the space race. How did your father nudge you toward medicine?

A: When I was 9 years old, my favorite movie hero died of cancer. To comfort me, my father inserted the idea into my brain: When you grow up, you can become a doctor to cure cancer. So, when I finished high school, I was 24th in the state and had an option to go to the space school in India. On the day when I was going for the interview, I could see tears in my father’s eyes, and he said, You know what, boy? I thought you’re going to become a doctor and cure cancer. So, to honor him, I went to med school instead.

Courtesty Dr. Kashyap Patel

Q: I understand that your father also triggered your interest in photography?

A: I started photographing Kutchi tribal people in 1977, after I bought a camera from a famous architect [Hasmukh Patel], while traveling with my dad. And then my dad bought me a motorcycle, so I started riding myself. From the time I entered med school in 1978 until I finished my residency in 1987, I made several trips following Kutchi migrant families and livestock. They leave their homeland in Kutch [district] during summer in search of grass and water to keep their livestock alive and walk across the state from the desert of Kutch all the way to central Gujarat until monsoon begins. Then they return, only to resume the journey next year. I would catch them along their journey, would talk to them, drink tea and eat millet crepes with them.

Courtesy Dr. Kashyap Patel

In 1984, between Dr. Patel’s medical school and residency, the Lions Club in his hometown, Ahmedabad, India, sponsored him and three buddies to document people and wildlife in Gujarat state. Traveling by motorcycle, the four friends stayed for free with local families by knocking on doors and explaining that they were medical students. Dr. Patel’s photographs were exhibited by the Lions Club of Ahmedabad and at India’s top art institution, the Lalit Kala gallery.

In the 3rd year of his internal-medicine residency in Bombay (now Mumbai), Dr. Patel approached a national newspaper, The Indian Express, for work. He was immediately sent on assignment to cover a cholera epidemic and filed his story and photographs the following day. He worked as a photojournalist and subeditor for a year.
 

Courtesy Dr. Kashyap Patel

Q: Among all your thousands of pictures, do you have a favorite?

A: There were two photos of Kutchi people that touched me. There was one photo of a lady. All of her worldly belongings were in the picture and a smile on her face showed that we don’t need so many things to be happy. The second photo is of an elderly lady shifting her water pan on her head to a younger family member. And a little girl looks up with a look of curiosity: Will I be doing this when I grow up? We seek so much materialistic happiness. But when you look at the curiosity, smiles, and happiness [in these photos], you realize we could have a lot of happiness in minimalism, as well.

Q: After you finished your residency in Ahmedabad, how did you get started in oncology?

A: In 1986, Ahmedabad City and Gujarat State did not have structured training programs in oncology, so I went to Bombay [Mumbai], where Dr. B.C. Mehta, a true legend and pioneer in India, had started hematology-oncology training. I was a post-doc research fellow with him for a little over a year but when I started seeing patients, I had to answer to myself, Am I doing everything I can to help these people? I saw that the U.K. had one of the best training programs in hem malignancy, so I started applying. Then something happened that was almost like a miracle.

In April 1992, Dr. Patel was working at the Institute of Kidney Diseases in Ahmedabad. One afternoon, just as the clinic was closing for siesta, a family brought in a young girl. She had drug-induced thrombocytopenia and needed an immediate transfusion. The father offered to sell his wedding ring to pay Dr. Patel if he would supervise the treatment and stay by the girl’s side. Dr. Patel told the man to keep his ring, then he remained in the office with the child. At 4 p.m., the office phone rang. It was Dr. H.K. Parikh, an eminent British physician who was wintering in India and needed to make a medical appointment for his wife. On a normal day, Dr. Patel would have missed the call.

“This is how I got to meet Dr. Parikh, out of the blue,” said Dr. Patel. “His wife came to the office for 6 weeks and after 6 weeks, he said, You’re a smart guy; you should come to England. That was in April. I sent a resume and all the usual paperwork. On July 16, 1992, at 2 in the morning, I got a call from the U.K. saying, Your job is confirmed. I’m going to fax your appointment through the Royal College of Physicians, and you’re coming to Manchester to work with us. I’d been sponsored by the Overseas Doctors Training Program.

“So, it turns out that if I’d declined to see that patient and declined to stay in my clinic that afternoon, if I’d declined to see this doctor’s wife, I would never have been in the U.K. And that opened up the doors for me. I like that story because I’ve found that standing up for people who do not have a voice, who do not have hope, always leads to what is destined for me.”
 

Q: After working as a registrar in the United Kingdom 4 years, you found yourself in the United States and, once again, had to train as an internist. What was new about U.S. oncology?

A: I took 3 years to get recertified in Jamaica Hospital in Queens, then became a fellow in hematology-oncology at the Thomas Jefferson in Philadelphia. My U.K. training was all based on hematological malignancy. In the United States, I shifted into solid tumors.

Q: You have a long history of advocating for affordable oncology at the community, state, and federal level, and you recently launched a disparities initiative in your center called NOLA (No One Left Alone). What was the trigger for NOLA?

A: In the spring of 2020, when we started seeing the COVID surge and the difference in mortality rate between the multiple races, at the same time I saw the AACR [American Association for Cancer Research] 2020 disparity report showing that 34% of cancer deaths are preventable – one in three – if we took care of disparities. The same year, the Community Oncology Alliance asked me to become the president. So, I felt that there is something herding me, leading me, to this position. Eighty percent of cancer patients are treated in community clinics like ours. It put the onus on me to do something.

I learned from Gandhi that I cannot depend on government, I cannot depend on the policy, I have to act myself.

I said, I would not worry about making money, I would rather lose funding on this. So, we started. I read 400+ papers; I spent over 1,000 hours reading about disparities. And I realized that it’s not complicated. There are five pillars to eliminate disparity: access to care for financial reasons, access to biomarker testing or precision medicine, access to social determinants of health, access to cancer screening, and trials. If we focus on these five, we can at least bring that number from 34% to 20%, if not lower.

So, we put that plan in place. I dedicated three employees whose only role is to ensure that not a single patient has to take financial burden from my practice. And we showed it’s doable.

This has now become my mission for the last quarter of my life.
 

In 2020, Dr. Patel published a book on dying well titled “Between Life and Death.” It’s framed as a series of his conversations with a former patient, Harry Falls. Harry wanted to understand death better, so Dr. Patel narrated five patient stories, drawing the threads together to help Harry face the inevitable. Dr. Patel now uses a similar approach to train clinicians on having meaningful end-of-life conversations with patients.

Courtesy Dr. Kashyap Patel

Q: Why did you feel the need to write a book about dying?

A: The more I’ve witnessed, the more I’m convinced that there are things that we don’t know about this process, which needs to be explored much more. However, I do feel that there’s a power within all of us to steer the process of leaving this world.

Before I sat down with Harry, I loved to counsel patients, but I didn’t have any structural ideas. It was Harry himself who told me that I now had a simple way to explain dying to a much larger audience.
 

Q: What is your secret for fitting everything into your life?

A: I’ll tell you, it’s very simple. If I put my soul, heart, mind, actions, and language on the one plane and don’t let my brain and conditioning influence my choices, then I live in the moment. Whenever I let my conditioned mind take all the decisions, those are crooked, because you know, we’re selfish creatures – we can use what we call the convenient lie to hide inconvenient truth. And I try not to do that. I mean, it’s been a journey. It didn’t come overnight. I learned. And I feel that over all these years, the only thing that rewarded me, that opened the door of where I am today, was pure, selfless process, whether it’s the act of talking, speaking, or doing.

A statement by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, published online in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, offers health care providers guidelines on how to prevent inappropriate antibiotic use in future pandemics and to avoid some of the negative scenarios that have been seen with COVID-19.

According to the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, the COVID-19 pandemic brought an alarming increase in antimicrobial resistance in hospitals, with infections and deaths caused by resistant bacteria and fungi going up by 15%. For some pathogens, such as the Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, that number is now as high as 78%.

The culprit might be the widespread antibiotic overprescription during the current pandemic. A 2022 meta-analysis revealed that in high-income countries, 58% of patients with COVID-19 were given antibiotics, whereas in lower- and middle-income countries, 89% of patients were put on such drugs. Some hospitals in Europe and the United States reported similarly elevated numbers, sometimes approaching 100%.

“We’ve lost control,” Natasha Pettit, PharmD, pharmacy director at University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization. Dr. Pettit was not involved in the SHEA study. “Even if CDC didn’t come out with that data, I can tell you right now more of my time is spent trying to figure out how to manage these multi-drug–resistant infections, and we are running out of options for these patients,”

“Dealing with uncertainty, exhaustion, [and] critical illness in often young, otherwise healthy patients meant doctors wanted to do something for their patients,” said Tamar Barlam, MD, an infectious diseases expert at the Boston Medical Center who led the development of the SHEA white paper, in an interview.

That something often was a prescription for antibiotics, even without a clear indication that they were actually needed. A British study revealed that in times of pandemic uncertainty, clinicians often reached for antibiotics “just in case” and referred to conservative prescribing as “bravery.”

Studies have shown, however, that bacterial co-infections in COVID-19 are rare. A 2020 meta-analysis of 24 studies concluded that only 3.5% of patients had a bacterial co-infection on presentation, and 14.3% had a secondary infection. Similar patterns had previously been observed in other viral outbreaks. Research on MERS-CoV, for example, documented only 1% of patients with a bacterial co-infection on admission. During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, that number was 12% of non–ICU hospitalized patients.

Yet, according to Dr. Pettit, even when such data became available, it didn’t necessarily change prescribing patterns. “Information was coming at us so quickly, I think the providers didn’t have a moment to see the data, to understand what it meant for their prescribing. Having external guidance earlier on would have been hugely helpful,” she told this news organization.

That’s where the newly published SHEA statement comes in: It outlines recommendations on when to prescribe antibiotics during a respiratory viral pandemic, what tests to order, and when to de-escalate or discontinue the treatment. These recommendations include, for instance, advice to not trust inflammatory markers as reliable indicators of bacterial or fungal infection and to not use procalcitonin routinely to aid in the decision to initiate antibiotics.

According to Dr. Barlam, one of the crucial lessons here is that if clinicians see patients with symptoms that are consistent with the current pandemic, they should trust their own impressions and avoid reaching for antimicrobials “just in case.”

Another important lesson is that antibiotic stewardship programs have a huge role to play during pandemics. They should not only monitor prescribing but also compile new information on bacterial co-infections as it gets released and make sure it reaches the clinicians in a clear form.

Evidence suggests that such programs and guidelines do work to limit unnecessary antibiotic use. In one medical center in Chicago, for example, before recommendations on when to initiate and discontinue antimicrobials were released, over 74% of COVID-19 patients received antibiotics. After guidelines were put in place, the use of such drugs fell to 42%.

Dr. Pettit believes, however, that it’s important not to leave each medical center to its own devices. “Hindsight is always twenty-twenty,” she said, “but I think it would be great that, if we start hearing about a pathogen that might lead to another pandemic, we should have a mechanism in place to call together an expert body to get guidance for how antimicrobial stewardship programs should get involved.”

One of the authors of the SHEA statement, Susan Seo, reports an investigator-initiated Merck grant on cost-effectiveness of letermovir in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. Another author, Graeme Forrest, reports a clinical study grant from Regeneron for inpatient monoclonals against SARS-CoV-2. All other authors report no conflicts of interest. The study was independently supported.

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

A statement by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, published online in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, offers health care providers guidelines on how to prevent inappropriate antibiotic use in future pandemics and to avoid some of the negative scenarios that have been seen with COVID-19.

According to the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, the COVID-19 pandemic brought an alarming increase in antimicrobial resistance in hospitals, with infections and deaths caused by resistant bacteria and fungi going up by 15%. For some pathogens, such as the Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, that number is now as high as 78%.

The culprit might be the widespread antibiotic overprescription during the current pandemic. A 2022 meta-analysis revealed that in high-income countries, 58% of patients with COVID-19 were given antibiotics, whereas in lower- and middle-income countries, 89% of patients were put on such drugs. Some hospitals in Europe and the United States reported similarly elevated numbers, sometimes approaching 100%.

“We’ve lost control,” Natasha Pettit, PharmD, pharmacy director at University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization. Dr. Pettit was not involved in the SHEA study. “Even if CDC didn’t come out with that data, I can tell you right now more of my time is spent trying to figure out how to manage these multi-drug–resistant infections, and we are running out of options for these patients,”

“Dealing with uncertainty, exhaustion, [and] critical illness in often young, otherwise healthy patients meant doctors wanted to do something for their patients,” said Tamar Barlam, MD, an infectious diseases expert at the Boston Medical Center who led the development of the SHEA white paper, in an interview.

That something often was a prescription for antibiotics, even without a clear indication that they were actually needed. A British study revealed that in times of pandemic uncertainty, clinicians often reached for antibiotics “just in case” and referred to conservative prescribing as “bravery.”

Studies have shown, however, that bacterial co-infections in COVID-19 are rare. A 2020 meta-analysis of 24 studies concluded that only 3.5% of patients had a bacterial co-infection on presentation, and 14.3% had a secondary infection. Similar patterns had previously been observed in other viral outbreaks. Research on MERS-CoV, for example, documented only 1% of patients with a bacterial co-infection on admission. During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, that number was 12% of non–ICU hospitalized patients.

Yet, according to Dr. Pettit, even when such data became available, it didn’t necessarily change prescribing patterns. “Information was coming at us so quickly, I think the providers didn’t have a moment to see the data, to understand what it meant for their prescribing. Having external guidance earlier on would have been hugely helpful,” she told this news organization.

That’s where the newly published SHEA statement comes in: It outlines recommendations on when to prescribe antibiotics during a respiratory viral pandemic, what tests to order, and when to de-escalate or discontinue the treatment. These recommendations include, for instance, advice to not trust inflammatory markers as reliable indicators of bacterial or fungal infection and to not use procalcitonin routinely to aid in the decision to initiate antibiotics.

According to Dr. Barlam, one of the crucial lessons here is that if clinicians see patients with symptoms that are consistent with the current pandemic, they should trust their own impressions and avoid reaching for antimicrobials “just in case.”

Another important lesson is that antibiotic stewardship programs have a huge role to play during pandemics. They should not only monitor prescribing but also compile new information on bacterial co-infections as it gets released and make sure it reaches the clinicians in a clear form.

Evidence suggests that such programs and guidelines do work to limit unnecessary antibiotic use. In one medical center in Chicago, for example, before recommendations on when to initiate and discontinue antimicrobials were released, over 74% of COVID-19 patients received antibiotics. After guidelines were put in place, the use of such drugs fell to 42%.

Dr. Pettit believes, however, that it’s important not to leave each medical center to its own devices. “Hindsight is always twenty-twenty,” she said, “but I think it would be great that, if we start hearing about a pathogen that might lead to another pandemic, we should have a mechanism in place to call together an expert body to get guidance for how antimicrobial stewardship programs should get involved.”

One of the authors of the SHEA statement, Susan Seo, reports an investigator-initiated Merck grant on cost-effectiveness of letermovir in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. Another author, Graeme Forrest, reports a clinical study grant from Regeneron for inpatient monoclonals against SARS-CoV-2. All other authors report no conflicts of interest. The study was independently supported.

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

A statement by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, published online in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, offers health care providers guidelines on how to prevent inappropriate antibiotic use in future pandemics and to avoid some of the negative scenarios that have been seen with COVID-19.

According to the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, the COVID-19 pandemic brought an alarming increase in antimicrobial resistance in hospitals, with infections and deaths caused by resistant bacteria and fungi going up by 15%. For some pathogens, such as the Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, that number is now as high as 78%.

The culprit might be the widespread antibiotic overprescription during the current pandemic. A 2022 meta-analysis revealed that in high-income countries, 58% of patients with COVID-19 were given antibiotics, whereas in lower- and middle-income countries, 89% of patients were put on such drugs. Some hospitals in Europe and the United States reported similarly elevated numbers, sometimes approaching 100%.

“We’ve lost control,” Natasha Pettit, PharmD, pharmacy director at University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization. Dr. Pettit was not involved in the SHEA study. “Even if CDC didn’t come out with that data, I can tell you right now more of my time is spent trying to figure out how to manage these multi-drug–resistant infections, and we are running out of options for these patients,”

“Dealing with uncertainty, exhaustion, [and] critical illness in often young, otherwise healthy patients meant doctors wanted to do something for their patients,” said Tamar Barlam, MD, an infectious diseases expert at the Boston Medical Center who led the development of the SHEA white paper, in an interview.

That something often was a prescription for antibiotics, even without a clear indication that they were actually needed. A British study revealed that in times of pandemic uncertainty, clinicians often reached for antibiotics “just in case” and referred to conservative prescribing as “bravery.”

Studies have shown, however, that bacterial co-infections in COVID-19 are rare. A 2020 meta-analysis of 24 studies concluded that only 3.5% of patients had a bacterial co-infection on presentation, and 14.3% had a secondary infection. Similar patterns had previously been observed in other viral outbreaks. Research on MERS-CoV, for example, documented only 1% of patients with a bacterial co-infection on admission. During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, that number was 12% of non–ICU hospitalized patients.

Yet, according to Dr. Pettit, even when such data became available, it didn’t necessarily change prescribing patterns. “Information was coming at us so quickly, I think the providers didn’t have a moment to see the data, to understand what it meant for their prescribing. Having external guidance earlier on would have been hugely helpful,” she told this news organization.

That’s where the newly published SHEA statement comes in: It outlines recommendations on when to prescribe antibiotics during a respiratory viral pandemic, what tests to order, and when to de-escalate or discontinue the treatment. These recommendations include, for instance, advice to not trust inflammatory markers as reliable indicators of bacterial or fungal infection and to not use procalcitonin routinely to aid in the decision to initiate antibiotics.

According to Dr. Barlam, one of the crucial lessons here is that if clinicians see patients with symptoms that are consistent with the current pandemic, they should trust their own impressions and avoid reaching for antimicrobials “just in case.”

Another important lesson is that antibiotic stewardship programs have a huge role to play during pandemics. They should not only monitor prescribing but also compile new information on bacterial co-infections as it gets released and make sure it reaches the clinicians in a clear form.

Evidence suggests that such programs and guidelines do work to limit unnecessary antibiotic use. In one medical center in Chicago, for example, before recommendations on when to initiate and discontinue antimicrobials were released, over 74% of COVID-19 patients received antibiotics. After guidelines were put in place, the use of such drugs fell to 42%.

Dr. Pettit believes, however, that it’s important not to leave each medical center to its own devices. “Hindsight is always twenty-twenty,” she said, “but I think it would be great that, if we start hearing about a pathogen that might lead to another pandemic, we should have a mechanism in place to call together an expert body to get guidance for how antimicrobial stewardship programs should get involved.”

One of the authors of the SHEA statement, Susan Seo, reports an investigator-initiated Merck grant on cost-effectiveness of letermovir in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. Another author, Graeme Forrest, reports a clinical study grant from Regeneron for inpatient monoclonals against SARS-CoV-2. All other authors report no conflicts of interest. The study was independently supported.

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

A 1- or 2-year delay in recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings had little effect on most people’s risk of illness or death from cancer, provided they eventually got screened, according to a modeling study of the impact of pandemic-related screening delays.

Most patients whose screening was delayed still benefited through a reduction in risk of cancer or death, but that benefit was lower than it would have been had they been screened on time, particularly for 65-year-olds who hadn’t ever been screened for CRC.

Extending the upper ages for undergoing screening or substituting fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colonoscopies blunted some of this negative effect for 50-year-olds who had never been screened and for previously screened 60-year-olds, but those mitigation strategies weren’t as helpful for never-screened 65-year-olds, report Soham Sinha, MS, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and his colleagues.

Because older patients lose the most benefit from delayed CRC screenings, Mr. Sinha and his colleagues suggest, they should be prioritized when access is reduced.

The findings were published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Modeling the impact of missed screenings

CRC screenings dropped by as much as 82% at the start of the pandemic, Mr. Sinha and his co-authors note, and screening rates haven’t yet recovered as new COVID variants arise.

The researchers therefore sought to evaluate the potential clinical impact of screenings that were missed because of the pandemic on three groups of people who were at average risk of CRC: people who were 50 years old and had never been screened, people who were 65 and had never been screened, and people who had been screened by age 50 but were due for a colonoscopy screening at age 60.

They modeled the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer for a 1-year and a 2-year delay in screening, compared with on-time screening with a colonoscopy or an annual FIT through age 75, or colonoscopy surveillance through age 80.

Among never-screened 50-year-olds, waiting a year or two to start colonoscopy screening resulted in a 69% reduction in colorectal cancer incidence instead of the 70% reduction that would have occurred with on-time screening. Similarly, the reduction in risk of death from delayed screening was 75% instead of 76% with on-time screening.

A 1- or 2-year delay in starting FIT screening in this group led to a reduction in the benefit of lower risk by one percentage point: Patients had a 57% lower risk of cancer from a 1-year screening delay and a 56% reduction in risk from a 2-year delay, compared with a 58% reduction in risk without any delays. In terms of mortality, benefit fell by one absolute percentage point for each year of delay.
 

Restoring the benefits of screening

The most effective way to mitigate each of those lost percentage points from colonoscopy delays was to combine two rescue strategies: using FIT screening instead of colonoscopy when colonoscopy access was reduced and extending the upper ages of colonoscopy screening to age 76-77 and colonoscopy surveillance to age 81-82.

Solely extending the ages for undergoing screening and surveillance was more effective than solely substituting FIT screening for colonoscopies. To offset the impact of an FIT delay, extending the upper age of the screening or surveillance period was effective.

The negative effect of delayed colonoscopy screenings was greater for never-screened 65-year-olds, whose reduction in risk of developing CRC fell to 53%-54%, rather than the 66% reduction in risk they would have had with on-time screening. The reduction in risk of mortality from CRC was 60% instead of 74% if screenings were delayed instead of occurring on time.

“Starting at age 65 afforded individuals two lifetime colonoscopies, as opposed to one at age 66 or later, given that colorectal screening ended at age 75,” the authors write. “Rescue strategies decreased but did not negate the impact of pandemic-related colorectal screening delays.”

For never-screened 65-year-olds who experienced delays in FIT, undergoing screening 1 year late equated to a 41% reduction in cancer risk, and undergoing screening 2 years late resulted in a 38% reduction, compared with a 44% reduction with on-time FIT screening. The reduction in mortality fell from 60% with on-time screening to 57% with a 1-year delay and 54% with a 2-year delay. Though extending the upper age limited reduced this negative effect, it did not eliminate it.

The researchers found that delaying screening by 1 or 2 years among 60-year-olds who had had a colonoscopy at age 50 only modestly reduced the benefit of reduced risk of CRC or death.

“Rescue strategies mitigated or negated impact from colorectal screening delays and included FIT-based screening when colonoscopy was unavailable, with or without extended screening through ages 75 or 76,” the authors report.

One limitation of the study was its lack of cost-effectiveness calculations, which made it impossible to evaluate the economic implications of either the delays in screening or the proposed mitigation strategies.

“Our work suggests that among the 20% of the U.S. population aged 50-75 who are unscreened for colorectal cancer, older adults would experience the most clinical benefit from colorectal cancer screening if resources were limited during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors write.

Younger people who hadn’t yet been screened and those who had been screened at least once with a colonoscopy would not experience as dramatic a reduction in benefit once they underwent screening, they conclude.

One author was supported by the National Cancer Institute. One author has advised Universal Dx and Lean Medical and has consulted for Clinical Genomics, Medtronic, Guardant Health, and Freenome. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

A 1- or 2-year delay in recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings had little effect on most people’s risk of illness or death from cancer, provided they eventually got screened, according to a modeling study of the impact of pandemic-related screening delays.

Most patients whose screening was delayed still benefited through a reduction in risk of cancer or death, but that benefit was lower than it would have been had they been screened on time, particularly for 65-year-olds who hadn’t ever been screened for CRC.

Extending the upper ages for undergoing screening or substituting fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colonoscopies blunted some of this negative effect for 50-year-olds who had never been screened and for previously screened 60-year-olds, but those mitigation strategies weren’t as helpful for never-screened 65-year-olds, report Soham Sinha, MS, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and his colleagues.

Because older patients lose the most benefit from delayed CRC screenings, Mr. Sinha and his colleagues suggest, they should be prioritized when access is reduced.

The findings were published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Modeling the impact of missed screenings

CRC screenings dropped by as much as 82% at the start of the pandemic, Mr. Sinha and his co-authors note, and screening rates haven’t yet recovered as new COVID variants arise.

The researchers therefore sought to evaluate the potential clinical impact of screenings that were missed because of the pandemic on three groups of people who were at average risk of CRC: people who were 50 years old and had never been screened, people who were 65 and had never been screened, and people who had been screened by age 50 but were due for a colonoscopy screening at age 60.

They modeled the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer for a 1-year and a 2-year delay in screening, compared with on-time screening with a colonoscopy or an annual FIT through age 75, or colonoscopy surveillance through age 80.

Among never-screened 50-year-olds, waiting a year or two to start colonoscopy screening resulted in a 69% reduction in colorectal cancer incidence instead of the 70% reduction that would have occurred with on-time screening. Similarly, the reduction in risk of death from delayed screening was 75% instead of 76% with on-time screening.

A 1- or 2-year delay in starting FIT screening in this group led to a reduction in the benefit of lower risk by one percentage point: Patients had a 57% lower risk of cancer from a 1-year screening delay and a 56% reduction in risk from a 2-year delay, compared with a 58% reduction in risk without any delays. In terms of mortality, benefit fell by one absolute percentage point for each year of delay.
 

Restoring the benefits of screening

The most effective way to mitigate each of those lost percentage points from colonoscopy delays was to combine two rescue strategies: using FIT screening instead of colonoscopy when colonoscopy access was reduced and extending the upper ages of colonoscopy screening to age 76-77 and colonoscopy surveillance to age 81-82.

Solely extending the ages for undergoing screening and surveillance was more effective than solely substituting FIT screening for colonoscopies. To offset the impact of an FIT delay, extending the upper age of the screening or surveillance period was effective.

The negative effect of delayed colonoscopy screenings was greater for never-screened 65-year-olds, whose reduction in risk of developing CRC fell to 53%-54%, rather than the 66% reduction in risk they would have had with on-time screening. The reduction in risk of mortality from CRC was 60% instead of 74% if screenings were delayed instead of occurring on time.

“Starting at age 65 afforded individuals two lifetime colonoscopies, as opposed to one at age 66 or later, given that colorectal screening ended at age 75,” the authors write. “Rescue strategies decreased but did not negate the impact of pandemic-related colorectal screening delays.”

For never-screened 65-year-olds who experienced delays in FIT, undergoing screening 1 year late equated to a 41% reduction in cancer risk, and undergoing screening 2 years late resulted in a 38% reduction, compared with a 44% reduction with on-time FIT screening. The reduction in mortality fell from 60% with on-time screening to 57% with a 1-year delay and 54% with a 2-year delay. Though extending the upper age limited reduced this negative effect, it did not eliminate it.

The researchers found that delaying screening by 1 or 2 years among 60-year-olds who had had a colonoscopy at age 50 only modestly reduced the benefit of reduced risk of CRC or death.

“Rescue strategies mitigated or negated impact from colorectal screening delays and included FIT-based screening when colonoscopy was unavailable, with or without extended screening through ages 75 or 76,” the authors report.

One limitation of the study was its lack of cost-effectiveness calculations, which made it impossible to evaluate the economic implications of either the delays in screening or the proposed mitigation strategies.

“Our work suggests that among the 20% of the U.S. population aged 50-75 who are unscreened for colorectal cancer, older adults would experience the most clinical benefit from colorectal cancer screening if resources were limited during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors write.

Younger people who hadn’t yet been screened and those who had been screened at least once with a colonoscopy would not experience as dramatic a reduction in benefit once they underwent screening, they conclude.

One author was supported by the National Cancer Institute. One author has advised Universal Dx and Lean Medical and has consulted for Clinical Genomics, Medtronic, Guardant Health, and Freenome. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

A 1- or 2-year delay in recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings had little effect on most people’s risk of illness or death from cancer, provided they eventually got screened, according to a modeling study of the impact of pandemic-related screening delays.

Most patients whose screening was delayed still benefited through a reduction in risk of cancer or death, but that benefit was lower than it would have been had they been screened on time, particularly for 65-year-olds who hadn’t ever been screened for CRC.

Extending the upper ages for undergoing screening or substituting fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colonoscopies blunted some of this negative effect for 50-year-olds who had never been screened and for previously screened 60-year-olds, but those mitigation strategies weren’t as helpful for never-screened 65-year-olds, report Soham Sinha, MS, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and his colleagues.

Because older patients lose the most benefit from delayed CRC screenings, Mr. Sinha and his colleagues suggest, they should be prioritized when access is reduced.

The findings were published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Modeling the impact of missed screenings

CRC screenings dropped by as much as 82% at the start of the pandemic, Mr. Sinha and his co-authors note, and screening rates haven’t yet recovered as new COVID variants arise.

The researchers therefore sought to evaluate the potential clinical impact of screenings that were missed because of the pandemic on three groups of people who were at average risk of CRC: people who were 50 years old and had never been screened, people who were 65 and had never been screened, and people who had been screened by age 50 but were due for a colonoscopy screening at age 60.

They modeled the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer for a 1-year and a 2-year delay in screening, compared with on-time screening with a colonoscopy or an annual FIT through age 75, or colonoscopy surveillance through age 80.

Among never-screened 50-year-olds, waiting a year or two to start colonoscopy screening resulted in a 69% reduction in colorectal cancer incidence instead of the 70% reduction that would have occurred with on-time screening. Similarly, the reduction in risk of death from delayed screening was 75% instead of 76% with on-time screening.

A 1- or 2-year delay in starting FIT screening in this group led to a reduction in the benefit of lower risk by one percentage point: Patients had a 57% lower risk of cancer from a 1-year screening delay and a 56% reduction in risk from a 2-year delay, compared with a 58% reduction in risk without any delays. In terms of mortality, benefit fell by one absolute percentage point for each year of delay.
 

Restoring the benefits of screening

The most effective way to mitigate each of those lost percentage points from colonoscopy delays was to combine two rescue strategies: using FIT screening instead of colonoscopy when colonoscopy access was reduced and extending the upper ages of colonoscopy screening to age 76-77 and colonoscopy surveillance to age 81-82.

Solely extending the ages for undergoing screening and surveillance was more effective than solely substituting FIT screening for colonoscopies. To offset the impact of an FIT delay, extending the upper age of the screening or surveillance period was effective.

The negative effect of delayed colonoscopy screenings was greater for never-screened 65-year-olds, whose reduction in risk of developing CRC fell to 53%-54%, rather than the 66% reduction in risk they would have had with on-time screening. The reduction in risk of mortality from CRC was 60% instead of 74% if screenings were delayed instead of occurring on time.

“Starting at age 65 afforded individuals two lifetime colonoscopies, as opposed to one at age 66 or later, given that colorectal screening ended at age 75,” the authors write. “Rescue strategies decreased but did not negate the impact of pandemic-related colorectal screening delays.”

For never-screened 65-year-olds who experienced delays in FIT, undergoing screening 1 year late equated to a 41% reduction in cancer risk, and undergoing screening 2 years late resulted in a 38% reduction, compared with a 44% reduction with on-time FIT screening. The reduction in mortality fell from 60% with on-time screening to 57% with a 1-year delay and 54% with a 2-year delay. Though extending the upper age limited reduced this negative effect, it did not eliminate it.

The researchers found that delaying screening by 1 or 2 years among 60-year-olds who had had a colonoscopy at age 50 only modestly reduced the benefit of reduced risk of CRC or death.

“Rescue strategies mitigated or negated impact from colorectal screening delays and included FIT-based screening when colonoscopy was unavailable, with or without extended screening through ages 75 or 76,” the authors report.

One limitation of the study was its lack of cost-effectiveness calculations, which made it impossible to evaluate the economic implications of either the delays in screening or the proposed mitigation strategies.

“Our work suggests that among the 20% of the U.S. population aged 50-75 who are unscreened for colorectal cancer, older adults would experience the most clinical benefit from colorectal cancer screening if resources were limited during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors write.

Younger people who hadn’t yet been screened and those who had been screened at least once with a colonoscopy would not experience as dramatic a reduction in benefit once they underwent screening, they conclude.

One author was supported by the National Cancer Institute. One author has advised Universal Dx and Lean Medical and has consulted for Clinical Genomics, Medtronic, Guardant Health, and Freenome. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

Long-term A1c from the time of type 1 diabetes diagnosis strongly predicts the development of severe retinopathy and nephropathy, new data suggest.

“[Weighted] HbA1c followed from diagnosis is a very strong biomarker for pan-retinal laser-treated diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and nephropathy, [and] the prevalence of both is still increasing 32 years after diagnosis,” say Hans J. Arnqvist, MD, and colleagues in their study published online Sept. 12 in Diabetes Care.

The results are from a 32-year follow-up of 447 patients from time of diagnosis of type 1 diabetes at age 0-34 in the Vascular Diabetic Complications in Southeast Sweden study.

“To avoid PDR and macroalbuminuria in patients with type 1 diabetes, A1c less than 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) and as normal as possible should be recommended when achievable without severe hypoglycemia and with good quality of life,” stress Dr. Arnqvist, department of endocrinology, Linköping University (Sweden), and coauthors.

At the time of the 20- to 24-year VISS follow-up, severe eye complications, defined as PDR, or nephropathy, defined as macroalbuminuria, were not present in participants with a long-term weighted mean A1c less than 7.6% (60 mmol/mol), they write.
 

Is explanation an increase in glycemic burden with diabetes duration?

By years 32-36, the prevalence of PDR had risen from 14% to 27%, and macroalbuminuria from 4% to 8%, with prevalence strongly correlated with A1c levels. At the same time, the threshold for the appearance of those severe complications dropped, with the lowest A1c values for appearance of PDR decreasing from 7.6% to 7.3% and for macroalbuminuria from 8.4% to 8.1%.

“A possible explanation for the lowered threshold for development of severe microangiopathy is the increase in ‘glycemic burden’ with diabetes duration,” the authors speculate.

In all A1c categories above 6.7% (> 50 mmol/mol), the cumulative proportion with PDR and/or macroproteinuria continued to increase up to at least 32 years of diabetes duration.

At the highest A1c quintile, greater than 9.5% (> 80mmol/mol), 75% had developed PDR and 44.2% had macroalbuminuria.

These findings align with guidelines from both the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, which recommend A1c less than 7% (53 mmol/mol) as a treatment goal, and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which advises a target A1c of 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) or lower in children and adults with type 1 diabetes.

The American Diabetes Association recommends individualized A1c targets ranging from 6.5% to 8.0%.

The study was supported by Barndiabetesfonden (Swedish Children’s Diabetes Foundation) and Region Ostergotlands Stiftelsefonder. The authors reported no further disclosures.

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

Long-term A1c from the time of type 1 diabetes diagnosis strongly predicts the development of severe retinopathy and nephropathy, new data suggest.

“[Weighted] HbA1c followed from diagnosis is a very strong biomarker for pan-retinal laser-treated diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and nephropathy, [and] the prevalence of both is still increasing 32 years after diagnosis,” say Hans J. Arnqvist, MD, and colleagues in their study published online Sept. 12 in Diabetes Care.

The results are from a 32-year follow-up of 447 patients from time of diagnosis of type 1 diabetes at age 0-34 in the Vascular Diabetic Complications in Southeast Sweden study.

“To avoid PDR and macroalbuminuria in patients with type 1 diabetes, A1c less than 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) and as normal as possible should be recommended when achievable without severe hypoglycemia and with good quality of life,” stress Dr. Arnqvist, department of endocrinology, Linköping University (Sweden), and coauthors.

At the time of the 20- to 24-year VISS follow-up, severe eye complications, defined as PDR, or nephropathy, defined as macroalbuminuria, were not present in participants with a long-term weighted mean A1c less than 7.6% (60 mmol/mol), they write.
 

Is explanation an increase in glycemic burden with diabetes duration?

By years 32-36, the prevalence of PDR had risen from 14% to 27%, and macroalbuminuria from 4% to 8%, with prevalence strongly correlated with A1c levels. At the same time, the threshold for the appearance of those severe complications dropped, with the lowest A1c values for appearance of PDR decreasing from 7.6% to 7.3% and for macroalbuminuria from 8.4% to 8.1%.

“A possible explanation for the lowered threshold for development of severe microangiopathy is the increase in ‘glycemic burden’ with diabetes duration,” the authors speculate.

In all A1c categories above 6.7% (> 50 mmol/mol), the cumulative proportion with PDR and/or macroproteinuria continued to increase up to at least 32 years of diabetes duration.

At the highest A1c quintile, greater than 9.5% (> 80mmol/mol), 75% had developed PDR and 44.2% had macroalbuminuria.

These findings align with guidelines from both the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, which recommend A1c less than 7% (53 mmol/mol) as a treatment goal, and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which advises a target A1c of 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) or lower in children and adults with type 1 diabetes.

The American Diabetes Association recommends individualized A1c targets ranging from 6.5% to 8.0%.

The study was supported by Barndiabetesfonden (Swedish Children’s Diabetes Foundation) and Region Ostergotlands Stiftelsefonder. The authors reported no further disclosures.

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

Long-term A1c from the time of type 1 diabetes diagnosis strongly predicts the development of severe retinopathy and nephropathy, new data suggest.

“[Weighted] HbA1c followed from diagnosis is a very strong biomarker for pan-retinal laser-treated diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and nephropathy, [and] the prevalence of both is still increasing 32 years after diagnosis,” say Hans J. Arnqvist, MD, and colleagues in their study published online Sept. 12 in Diabetes Care.

The results are from a 32-year follow-up of 447 patients from time of diagnosis of type 1 diabetes at age 0-34 in the Vascular Diabetic Complications in Southeast Sweden study.

“To avoid PDR and macroalbuminuria in patients with type 1 diabetes, A1c less than 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) and as normal as possible should be recommended when achievable without severe hypoglycemia and with good quality of life,” stress Dr. Arnqvist, department of endocrinology, Linköping University (Sweden), and coauthors.

At the time of the 20- to 24-year VISS follow-up, severe eye complications, defined as PDR, or nephropathy, defined as macroalbuminuria, were not present in participants with a long-term weighted mean A1c less than 7.6% (60 mmol/mol), they write.
 

Is explanation an increase in glycemic burden with diabetes duration?

By years 32-36, the prevalence of PDR had risen from 14% to 27%, and macroalbuminuria from 4% to 8%, with prevalence strongly correlated with A1c levels. At the same time, the threshold for the appearance of those severe complications dropped, with the lowest A1c values for appearance of PDR decreasing from 7.6% to 7.3% and for macroalbuminuria from 8.4% to 8.1%.

“A possible explanation for the lowered threshold for development of severe microangiopathy is the increase in ‘glycemic burden’ with diabetes duration,” the authors speculate.

In all A1c categories above 6.7% (> 50 mmol/mol), the cumulative proportion with PDR and/or macroproteinuria continued to increase up to at least 32 years of diabetes duration.

At the highest A1c quintile, greater than 9.5% (> 80mmol/mol), 75% had developed PDR and 44.2% had macroalbuminuria.

These findings align with guidelines from both the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, which recommend A1c less than 7% (53 mmol/mol) as a treatment goal, and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which advises a target A1c of 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) or lower in children and adults with type 1 diabetes.

The American Diabetes Association recommends individualized A1c targets ranging from 6.5% to 8.0%.

The study was supported by Barndiabetesfonden (Swedish Children’s Diabetes Foundation) and Region Ostergotlands Stiftelsefonder. The authors reported no further disclosures.

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

The broad-spectrum antibiotic minocycline (multiple brands) is not effective when added to standard antidepressant therapy, the largest randomized, controlled trial of minocycline in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) shows.

In the MinoTRD trial, 6 weeks of minocycline 200 mg daily added to stable antidepressant therapy did not show a statistically significant advantage over placebo on the overall course of depressive symptoms.

“The failure of minocycline treatment to reduce depressive symptoms in a naturalistic sample of patients with TRD is a setback for anti-inflammatory treatment strategies in this clinical population,” Julian Hellmann-Regen, MD, department of psychiatry and neurosciences, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and colleagues wrote.  

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

No additional benefit

The “inflammatory hypothesis” of depression maintains that depression arises from increased immune activation and neurotrophic mechanisms.

This view is supported by observations that depression is accompanied by increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines. In addition, low-grade inflammatory processes may interfere with response to typical antidepressant medications. 

Minocycline has been put forth as a novel antidepressant, and a few small trials have hinted at a benefit.

In the MinoTRD trial, 168 patients (mean age, 46 years; 53% men) with TRD were randomly allocated minocycline 200 mg/day or matching placebo in addition to usual antidepressant treatment for 6 weeks.

Results showed minocycline was well tolerated but was not superior to placebo in reducing depressive symptoms, the researchers report.

Overall, the mean Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score at baseline was 26.5. There was no significant between-group difference in mean change in MADRS score from baseline to 6 weeks, the primary outcome.

After 6 weeks of treatment, the mean reduction in MADRS score was 8.46 points in the minocycline group versus 8.01 points in the placebo group, and the difference of 1.46 points was not significant (P = .25).

Six weeks of minocycline treatment did not alter the course of depression severity, compared with placebo, the investigators noted.

Minocycline treatment also showed no statistically significant effect on secondary outcomes of response, remission, and various other clinical rating scales.
 

Caveats and cautionary notes

The researchers noted that one explanation for the null result of the MinoTRD trial could be that the 6-week treatment duration was not long enough to reveal detectable differences. They point to a small study that showed a strong effect of minocycline, compared with placebo by and after 8 weeks of treatment.

However, a closer look at that study suggests the overall effect in the minocycline group was caused by an almost-complete lack of improvement in the placebo group, “which is very unusual,” the investigators wrote.

In the MinoTRD trial, the magnitude of improvement for placebo was as expected from similar trials in TRD, they pointed out.

They also noted that, unlike some other trials, the MinoTRD trial purposely recruited a naturalistic population of TRD, assuming (but not confirming) elevated baseline inflammation as a potential underlying cause in at least a subgroup of the patients.

Post hoc stratification by baseline CRP levels in MinoTRD participants did not yield any results supporting the hypothesis of minocycline treatment possibly being more effective in participants with higher-grade baseline inflammation, the researchers reported.

“Our results from this large randomized controlled trial of a pleiotropic anti-inflammatory drug in this difficult-to-treat patient population are of great clinical importance, robustly demonstrating that minocycline add-on treatment does not outperform placebo, not even in those participants with elevated levels of CRP prior to treatment initiation,” they wrote.

The trial was funded by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the Consortium Optimizing Treatment of Depression, as part of the Research Network for Psychiatric Disorders. Dr. Hellmann-Regen reported no relevant financial relationship.

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

The broad-spectrum antibiotic minocycline (multiple brands) is not effective when added to standard antidepressant therapy, the largest randomized, controlled trial of minocycline in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) shows.

In the MinoTRD trial, 6 weeks of minocycline 200 mg daily added to stable antidepressant therapy did not show a statistically significant advantage over placebo on the overall course of depressive symptoms.

“The failure of minocycline treatment to reduce depressive symptoms in a naturalistic sample of patients with TRD is a setback for anti-inflammatory treatment strategies in this clinical population,” Julian Hellmann-Regen, MD, department of psychiatry and neurosciences, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and colleagues wrote.  

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

No additional benefit

The “inflammatory hypothesis” of depression maintains that depression arises from increased immune activation and neurotrophic mechanisms.

This view is supported by observations that depression is accompanied by increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines. In addition, low-grade inflammatory processes may interfere with response to typical antidepressant medications. 

Minocycline has been put forth as a novel antidepressant, and a few small trials have hinted at a benefit.

In the MinoTRD trial, 168 patients (mean age, 46 years; 53% men) with TRD were randomly allocated minocycline 200 mg/day or matching placebo in addition to usual antidepressant treatment for 6 weeks.

Results showed minocycline was well tolerated but was not superior to placebo in reducing depressive symptoms, the researchers report.

Overall, the mean Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score at baseline was 26.5. There was no significant between-group difference in mean change in MADRS score from baseline to 6 weeks, the primary outcome.

After 6 weeks of treatment, the mean reduction in MADRS score was 8.46 points in the minocycline group versus 8.01 points in the placebo group, and the difference of 1.46 points was not significant (P = .25).

Six weeks of minocycline treatment did not alter the course of depression severity, compared with placebo, the investigators noted.

Minocycline treatment also showed no statistically significant effect on secondary outcomes of response, remission, and various other clinical rating scales.
 

Caveats and cautionary notes

The researchers noted that one explanation for the null result of the MinoTRD trial could be that the 6-week treatment duration was not long enough to reveal detectable differences. They point to a small study that showed a strong effect of minocycline, compared with placebo by and after 8 weeks of treatment.

However, a closer look at that study suggests the overall effect in the minocycline group was caused by an almost-complete lack of improvement in the placebo group, “which is very unusual,” the investigators wrote.

In the MinoTRD trial, the magnitude of improvement for placebo was as expected from similar trials in TRD, they pointed out.

They also noted that, unlike some other trials, the MinoTRD trial purposely recruited a naturalistic population of TRD, assuming (but not confirming) elevated baseline inflammation as a potential underlying cause in at least a subgroup of the patients.

Post hoc stratification by baseline CRP levels in MinoTRD participants did not yield any results supporting the hypothesis of minocycline treatment possibly being more effective in participants with higher-grade baseline inflammation, the researchers reported.

“Our results from this large randomized controlled trial of a pleiotropic anti-inflammatory drug in this difficult-to-treat patient population are of great clinical importance, robustly demonstrating that minocycline add-on treatment does not outperform placebo, not even in those participants with elevated levels of CRP prior to treatment initiation,” they wrote.

The trial was funded by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the Consortium Optimizing Treatment of Depression, as part of the Research Network for Psychiatric Disorders. Dr. Hellmann-Regen reported no relevant financial relationship.

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

The broad-spectrum antibiotic minocycline (multiple brands) is not effective when added to standard antidepressant therapy, the largest randomized, controlled trial of minocycline in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) shows.

In the MinoTRD trial, 6 weeks of minocycline 200 mg daily added to stable antidepressant therapy did not show a statistically significant advantage over placebo on the overall course of depressive symptoms.

“The failure of minocycline treatment to reduce depressive symptoms in a naturalistic sample of patients with TRD is a setback for anti-inflammatory treatment strategies in this clinical population,” Julian Hellmann-Regen, MD, department of psychiatry and neurosciences, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and colleagues wrote.  

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

No additional benefit

The “inflammatory hypothesis” of depression maintains that depression arises from increased immune activation and neurotrophic mechanisms.

This view is supported by observations that depression is accompanied by increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines. In addition, low-grade inflammatory processes may interfere with response to typical antidepressant medications. 

Minocycline has been put forth as a novel antidepressant, and a few small trials have hinted at a benefit.

In the MinoTRD trial, 168 patients (mean age, 46 years; 53% men) with TRD were randomly allocated minocycline 200 mg/day or matching placebo in addition to usual antidepressant treatment for 6 weeks.

Results showed minocycline was well tolerated but was not superior to placebo in reducing depressive symptoms, the researchers report.

Overall, the mean Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score at baseline was 26.5. There was no significant between-group difference in mean change in MADRS score from baseline to 6 weeks, the primary outcome.

After 6 weeks of treatment, the mean reduction in MADRS score was 8.46 points in the minocycline group versus 8.01 points in the placebo group, and the difference of 1.46 points was not significant (P = .25).

Six weeks of minocycline treatment did not alter the course of depression severity, compared with placebo, the investigators noted.

Minocycline treatment also showed no statistically significant effect on secondary outcomes of response, remission, and various other clinical rating scales.
 

Caveats and cautionary notes

The researchers noted that one explanation for the null result of the MinoTRD trial could be that the 6-week treatment duration was not long enough to reveal detectable differences. They point to a small study that showed a strong effect of minocycline, compared with placebo by and after 8 weeks of treatment.

However, a closer look at that study suggests the overall effect in the minocycline group was caused by an almost-complete lack of improvement in the placebo group, “which is very unusual,” the investigators wrote.

In the MinoTRD trial, the magnitude of improvement for placebo was as expected from similar trials in TRD, they pointed out.

They also noted that, unlike some other trials, the MinoTRD trial purposely recruited a naturalistic population of TRD, assuming (but not confirming) elevated baseline inflammation as a potential underlying cause in at least a subgroup of the patients.

Post hoc stratification by baseline CRP levels in MinoTRD participants did not yield any results supporting the hypothesis of minocycline treatment possibly being more effective in participants with higher-grade baseline inflammation, the researchers reported.

“Our results from this large randomized controlled trial of a pleiotropic anti-inflammatory drug in this difficult-to-treat patient population are of great clinical importance, robustly demonstrating that minocycline add-on treatment does not outperform placebo, not even in those participants with elevated levels of CRP prior to treatment initiation,” they wrote.

The trial was funded by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the Consortium Optimizing Treatment of Depression, as part of the Research Network for Psychiatric Disorders. Dr. Hellmann-Regen reported no relevant financial relationship.

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

A new guideline aims to help primary care doctors differentiate pollen food syndrome (PFS) – a cross-reactive allergic reaction to certain raw, but not cooked, plant foods – from other food allergies.

The guideline from the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) focuses on birch tree pollen, the major sensitizing PFS allergen in Northern Europe. Providers may be able to diagnose PFS related to birch pollen from clinical history alone, including the foods involved and the rapidity of symptom onset, write lead author Isabel J. Skypala, PhD, RD, of Imperial College London, and her colleagues.

The new BSACI guideline for diagnosis and management of PFS was published in Clinical & Experimental Allergy.
 

PFS is common and increasingly prevalent

PFS – also called oral allergy syndrome and pollen food allergy syndrome – is common and increasingly prevalent. PFS can begin at any age but usually starts in pollen-sensitized school-age children and adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Symptoms from similar proteins in food

Mild to moderate allergic symptoms develop quickly when people sensitized to birch pollen eat raw plant foods that contain proteins similar to those in the pollen, such as pathogenesis-related protein PR-10. The allergens are broken down by cooking or processing.

Symptoms usually occur immediately or within 15 minutes of eating. Patients may have tingling; itching or soreness in the mouth, throat, or ears; mild lip and oral mucosa angioedema; itchy hands, sneezing, or eye symptoms; tongue or pharynx angioedema; perioral rash; cough; abdominal pain; nausea; and/or worsening of eczema. In children, itch and rash may predominate.
 

Triggers depend on pollen type

PFS triggers vary depending on a person’s pollen sensitization, which is affected by their geographic area and local dietary habits. In the United Kingdom, almost 70% of birch-allergic adults and more than 40% of birch-allergic children have PFS, the authors write.

Typical triggers include eating apples, stone fruits, kiwis, carrots, celery, hazelnuts, almonds, walnuts, soymilk, and peanuts, as well as peeling potatoes or other root vegetables. Freshly prepared vegetable or fruit smoothies or juices, celery, soymilk, raw nuts, large quantities of roasted nuts, and concentrated nut products can cause more severe reactions.
 

Diagnostic clinical history

If a patient answers yes to these questions, they almost certainly have PFS, the authors write:

• Are symptoms caused by raw fruits, nuts, carrots, or celery?
• Are the same trigger foods tolerated when they’re cooked well or roasted?
• Do symptoms come immediately or within a few minutes of eating?
• Do symptoms occur in the oropharynx and include tingling, itching, or swelling?
• Does the patient have seasonal allergic rhinitis or sensitization to pollen?

Testing needed for some cases

Allergy tests may be needed for people who report atypical or severe reactions or who also react to cooked or processed plant foods, such as roasted nuts, nuts in foods, fruits or vegetables in juices and smoothies, and soy products other than milk. Tests may also be needed for people who react to foods that are not linked with PFS, such as cashews, pistachios, macadamias, sesame seeds, beans, lentils, and chickpeas.

Whether PFS reactions also occur to roasted hazelnuts, almonds, walnuts, Brazil nuts, or peanuts, either alone or in composite foods such as chocolates, spreads, desserts, and snacks, is unclear.

An oral food challenge to confirm PFS is needed only if the history and diagnostic tests are inconclusive or if the patient is avoiding multiple foods.
 

Dietary management

PFS is managed by excluding known trigger foods. This becomes challenging for patients with preexisting food allergies and for vegetarians and vegans.

Personalized dietary advice is needed to avoid nutritional imbalance, minimize anxiety and unnecessary food restrictions, and improve quality of life. Reactions after accidental exposure often resolve without medication, and if antihistamines are needed, they rarely require self-injectable devices.
 

Guideline helpful beyond the United Kingdom and birch pollen

Allyson S. Larkin, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, told this news organization in an email that the guideline summarizes in great detail the pathophysiology behind PFS and highlights how component testing may help diagnose patients and manage the condition.

“Patients worry very much about the progression and severity of allergic reactions,” said Dr. Larkin, who was not involved in the guideline development.

“As the authors note, recognizing the nutritional consequences of dietary restrictions is important, and nutrition consults and suitable alternative suggestions are very helpful for these patients, especially for those with food allergy or who are vegetarian or vegan.”

Jill A. Poole, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Allergy and Immunology at the University of Nebraska College of Medicine, Omaha, noted that PFS, although common, is underrecognized by the public and by health care providers.

“People are not allergic to the specific food, but they are allergic to a seasonal allergen, such as birch tree, that cross-reacts with the food protein, which is typically changed with cooking,” she explained in an email.

“This differs from reactions by those who have moderate to severe allergic food-specific reactions that may include systemic reactions like anaphylaxis from eating certain foods,” she said.

“Importantly, the number of cross-reacting foods with seasonal pollens continues to grow, and the extent of testing has expanded in recent years,” advised Dr. Poole, who also was not involved in the guideline development. 

The authors recommend further related research into food immunotherapy and other novel PFS treatments. They also want to raise awareness of factors affecting PFS prevalence, such as increased spread and allergenicity of pollen due to climate change, pollution, the global consumption of previously local traditional foods, and the increase in vegetarian and vegan diets.

The authors, Dr. Larkin, and Dr. Poole report no relevant financial relationships involving this guideline. The guideline was not funded.

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

A new guideline aims to help primary care doctors differentiate pollen food syndrome (PFS) – a cross-reactive allergic reaction to certain raw, but not cooked, plant foods – from other food allergies.

The guideline from the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) focuses on birch tree pollen, the major sensitizing PFS allergen in Northern Europe. Providers may be able to diagnose PFS related to birch pollen from clinical history alone, including the foods involved and the rapidity of symptom onset, write lead author Isabel J. Skypala, PhD, RD, of Imperial College London, and her colleagues.

The new BSACI guideline for diagnosis and management of PFS was published in Clinical & Experimental Allergy.
 

PFS is common and increasingly prevalent

PFS – also called oral allergy syndrome and pollen food allergy syndrome – is common and increasingly prevalent. PFS can begin at any age but usually starts in pollen-sensitized school-age children and adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Symptoms from similar proteins in food

Mild to moderate allergic symptoms develop quickly when people sensitized to birch pollen eat raw plant foods that contain proteins similar to those in the pollen, such as pathogenesis-related protein PR-10. The allergens are broken down by cooking or processing.

Symptoms usually occur immediately or within 15 minutes of eating. Patients may have tingling; itching or soreness in the mouth, throat, or ears; mild lip and oral mucosa angioedema; itchy hands, sneezing, or eye symptoms; tongue or pharynx angioedema; perioral rash; cough; abdominal pain; nausea; and/or worsening of eczema. In children, itch and rash may predominate.
 

Triggers depend on pollen type

PFS triggers vary depending on a person’s pollen sensitization, which is affected by their geographic area and local dietary habits. In the United Kingdom, almost 70% of birch-allergic adults and more than 40% of birch-allergic children have PFS, the authors write.

Typical triggers include eating apples, stone fruits, kiwis, carrots, celery, hazelnuts, almonds, walnuts, soymilk, and peanuts, as well as peeling potatoes or other root vegetables. Freshly prepared vegetable or fruit smoothies or juices, celery, soymilk, raw nuts, large quantities of roasted nuts, and concentrated nut products can cause more severe reactions.
 

Diagnostic clinical history

If a patient answers yes to these questions, they almost certainly have PFS, the authors write:

• Are symptoms caused by raw fruits, nuts, carrots, or celery?
• Are the same trigger foods tolerated when they’re cooked well or roasted?
• Do symptoms come immediately or within a few minutes of eating?
• Do symptoms occur in the oropharynx and include tingling, itching, or swelling?
• Does the patient have seasonal allergic rhinitis or sensitization to pollen?

Testing needed for some cases

Allergy tests may be needed for people who report atypical or severe reactions or who also react to cooked or processed plant foods, such as roasted nuts, nuts in foods, fruits or vegetables in juices and smoothies, and soy products other than milk. Tests may also be needed for people who react to foods that are not linked with PFS, such as cashews, pistachios, macadamias, sesame seeds, beans, lentils, and chickpeas.

Whether PFS reactions also occur to roasted hazelnuts, almonds, walnuts, Brazil nuts, or peanuts, either alone or in composite foods such as chocolates, spreads, desserts, and snacks, is unclear.

An oral food challenge to confirm PFS is needed only if the history and diagnostic tests are inconclusive or if the patient is avoiding multiple foods.
 

Dietary management

PFS is managed by excluding known trigger foods. This becomes challenging for patients with preexisting food allergies and for vegetarians and vegans.

Personalized dietary advice is needed to avoid nutritional imbalance, minimize anxiety and unnecessary food restrictions, and improve quality of life. Reactions after accidental exposure often resolve without medication, and if antihistamines are needed, they rarely require self-injectable devices.
 

Guideline helpful beyond the United Kingdom and birch pollen

Allyson S. Larkin, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, told this news organization in an email that the guideline summarizes in great detail the pathophysiology behind PFS and highlights how component testing may help diagnose patients and manage the condition.

“Patients worry very much about the progression and severity of allergic reactions,” said Dr. Larkin, who was not involved in the guideline development.

“As the authors note, recognizing the nutritional consequences of dietary restrictions is important, and nutrition consults and suitable alternative suggestions are very helpful for these patients, especially for those with food allergy or who are vegetarian or vegan.”

Jill A. Poole, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Allergy and Immunology at the University of Nebraska College of Medicine, Omaha, noted that PFS, although common, is underrecognized by the public and by health care providers.

“People are not allergic to the specific food, but they are allergic to a seasonal allergen, such as birch tree, that cross-reacts with the food protein, which is typically changed with cooking,” she explained in an email.

“This differs from reactions by those who have moderate to severe allergic food-specific reactions that may include systemic reactions like anaphylaxis from eating certain foods,” she said.

“Importantly, the number of cross-reacting foods with seasonal pollens continues to grow, and the extent of testing has expanded in recent years,” advised Dr. Poole, who also was not involved in the guideline development. 

The authors recommend further related research into food immunotherapy and other novel PFS treatments. They also want to raise awareness of factors affecting PFS prevalence, such as increased spread and allergenicity of pollen due to climate change, pollution, the global consumption of previously local traditional foods, and the increase in vegetarian and vegan diets.

The authors, Dr. Larkin, and Dr. Poole report no relevant financial relationships involving this guideline. The guideline was not funded.

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

A new guideline aims to help primary care doctors differentiate pollen food syndrome (PFS) – a cross-reactive allergic reaction to certain raw, but not cooked, plant foods – from other food allergies.

The guideline from the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) focuses on birch tree pollen, the major sensitizing PFS allergen in Northern Europe. Providers may be able to diagnose PFS related to birch pollen from clinical history alone, including the foods involved and the rapidity of symptom onset, write lead author Isabel J. Skypala, PhD, RD, of Imperial College London, and her colleagues.

The new BSACI guideline for diagnosis and management of PFS was published in Clinical & Experimental Allergy.
 

PFS is common and increasingly prevalent

PFS – also called oral allergy syndrome and pollen food allergy syndrome – is common and increasingly prevalent. PFS can begin at any age but usually starts in pollen-sensitized school-age children and adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Symptoms from similar proteins in food

Mild to moderate allergic symptoms develop quickly when people sensitized to birch pollen eat raw plant foods that contain proteins similar to those in the pollen, such as pathogenesis-related protein PR-10. The allergens are broken down by cooking or processing.

Symptoms usually occur immediately or within 15 minutes of eating. Patients may have tingling; itching or soreness in the mouth, throat, or ears; mild lip and oral mucosa angioedema; itchy hands, sneezing, or eye symptoms; tongue or pharynx angioedema; perioral rash; cough; abdominal pain; nausea; and/or worsening of eczema. In children, itch and rash may predominate.
 

Triggers depend on pollen type

PFS triggers vary depending on a person’s pollen sensitization, which is affected by their geographic area and local dietary habits. In the United Kingdom, almost 70% of birch-allergic adults and more than 40% of birch-allergic children have PFS, the authors write.

Typical triggers include eating apples, stone fruits, kiwis, carrots, celery, hazelnuts, almonds, walnuts, soymilk, and peanuts, as well as peeling potatoes or other root vegetables. Freshly prepared vegetable or fruit smoothies or juices, celery, soymilk, raw nuts, large quantities of roasted nuts, and concentrated nut products can cause more severe reactions.
 

Diagnostic clinical history

If a patient answers yes to these questions, they almost certainly have PFS, the authors write:

• Are symptoms caused by raw fruits, nuts, carrots, or celery?
• Are the same trigger foods tolerated when they’re cooked well or roasted?
• Do symptoms come immediately or within a few minutes of eating?
• Do symptoms occur in the oropharynx and include tingling, itching, or swelling?
• Does the patient have seasonal allergic rhinitis or sensitization to pollen?

Testing needed for some cases

Allergy tests may be needed for people who report atypical or severe reactions or who also react to cooked or processed plant foods, such as roasted nuts, nuts in foods, fruits or vegetables in juices and smoothies, and soy products other than milk. Tests may also be needed for people who react to foods that are not linked with PFS, such as cashews, pistachios, macadamias, sesame seeds, beans, lentils, and chickpeas.

Whether PFS reactions also occur to roasted hazelnuts, almonds, walnuts, Brazil nuts, or peanuts, either alone or in composite foods such as chocolates, spreads, desserts, and snacks, is unclear.

An oral food challenge to confirm PFS is needed only if the history and diagnostic tests are inconclusive or if the patient is avoiding multiple foods.
 

Dietary management

PFS is managed by excluding known trigger foods. This becomes challenging for patients with preexisting food allergies and for vegetarians and vegans.

Personalized dietary advice is needed to avoid nutritional imbalance, minimize anxiety and unnecessary food restrictions, and improve quality of life. Reactions after accidental exposure often resolve without medication, and if antihistamines are needed, they rarely require self-injectable devices.
 

Guideline helpful beyond the United Kingdom and birch pollen

Allyson S. Larkin, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, told this news organization in an email that the guideline summarizes in great detail the pathophysiology behind PFS and highlights how component testing may help diagnose patients and manage the condition.

“Patients worry very much about the progression and severity of allergic reactions,” said Dr. Larkin, who was not involved in the guideline development.

“As the authors note, recognizing the nutritional consequences of dietary restrictions is important, and nutrition consults and suitable alternative suggestions are very helpful for these patients, especially for those with food allergy or who are vegetarian or vegan.”

Jill A. Poole, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Allergy and Immunology at the University of Nebraska College of Medicine, Omaha, noted that PFS, although common, is underrecognized by the public and by health care providers.

“People are not allergic to the specific food, but they are allergic to a seasonal allergen, such as birch tree, that cross-reacts with the food protein, which is typically changed with cooking,” she explained in an email.

“This differs from reactions by those who have moderate to severe allergic food-specific reactions that may include systemic reactions like anaphylaxis from eating certain foods,” she said.

“Importantly, the number of cross-reacting foods with seasonal pollens continues to grow, and the extent of testing has expanded in recent years,” advised Dr. Poole, who also was not involved in the guideline development. 

The authors recommend further related research into food immunotherapy and other novel PFS treatments. They also want to raise awareness of factors affecting PFS prevalence, such as increased spread and allergenicity of pollen due to climate change, pollution, the global consumption of previously local traditional foods, and the increase in vegetarian and vegan diets.

The authors, Dr. Larkin, and Dr. Poole report no relevant financial relationships involving this guideline. The guideline was not funded.

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

POMONA, CALIF. – When you first meet 17-month-old Aaron Martinez, it’s not obvious that something is catastrophically wrong.

What you see is a beautiful little boy with smooth, lustrous skin, an abundance of glossy brown hair, and a disarming smile. What you hear are coos and cries that don’t immediately signal anything is horribly awry.

But his parents, Adriana Pinedo and Hector Martinez, know the truth painfully well.

Although Ms. Pinedo’s doctors and midwife had described the pregnancy as “perfect” for all 9 months, Aaron was born with most of his brain cells dead, the result of two strokes and a massive bleed he sustained while in utero.

Doctors aren’t sure what caused the anomalies that left Aaron with virtually no cognitive function or physical mobility. His voluminous hair hides a head whose circumference is too small for his age. He has epilepsy that triggers multiple seizures each day, and his smile is not always what it seems. “It could be a smile; it could be a seizure,” Ms. Pinedo said.

Shortly after Aaron was born, doctors told Ms. Pinedo, 34, and Mr. Martinez, 35, there was no hope and they should “let nature take its course.” They would learn months later that the doctors had not expected the boy to live more than 5 days. It was on Day 5 that his parents put him in home hospice care, an arrangement that has continued into his second year of life.

The family gets weekly visits from hospice nurses, therapists, social workers, and a chaplain in the cramped one-bedroom apartment they rent from the people who live in the main house on the same lot on a quiet residential street in this Inland Empire city.

One of the main criteria for hospice care, established by Medicare largely for seniors but also applied to children, is a diagnosis of 6 months or less to live. Yet over the course of 17 months, Aaron’s medical team has repeatedly recertified his hospice eligibility.

Under a provision of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, children enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program are allowed, unlike adults, to be in hospice while continuing to receive curative or life-extending care. Commercial insurers are not required to cover this “concurrent care,” but many now do.

More than a decade since its inception, concurrent care is widely credited with improving the quality of life for many terminally ill children, easing stress on the family and, in some cases, sustaining hope for a cure. But the arrangement can contribute to a painful dilemma for parents like Ms. Pinedo and Mr. Martinez, who are torn between their fierce commitment to their son and the futility of knowing that his condition leaves him with no future worth hoping for.

“We could lose a life, but if he continues to live this way, we’ll lose three,” said Ms. Pinedo. “There’s no quality of life for him or for us.”

Aaron’s doctors now say he could conceivably live for years. His body hasn’t stopped growing since he was born. He’s in the 96th percentile for height for his age, and his weight is about average.

His parents have talked about “graduating” him from hospice. But he is never stable for long, and they welcome the visits from their hospice team. The seizures, sometimes 30 a day, are a persistent assault on his brain and, as he grows, the medications intended to control them must be changed or the doses recalibrated. He is at continual risk of gastrointestinal problems and potentially deadly fluid buildup in his lungs.

Ms. Pinedo, who works from home for a nonprofit public health organization, spends much of her time with Aaron, while Mr. Martinez works as a landscaper. She has chosen to live in the moment, she said, because otherwise her mind wanders to a future in which either “he could die – or he won’t, and I’ll end up changing the diapers of a 40-year-old man.” Either of those “are going to suck.”

While cancer is one of the major illnesses afflicting children in hospice, many others, like Aaron, have rare congenital defects, severe neurological impairments, or uncommon metabolic deficiencies.

“We have diseases that families tell us are 1 of 10 cases in the world,” said Glen Komatsu, MD, medical director of Torrance, Calif.–based TrinityKids Care, which provides home hospice services to Aaron and more than 70 other kids in Los Angeles and Orange counties.

In the years leading up to the ACA’s implementation, pediatric health advocates lobbied hard for the concurrent care provision. Without the possibility of life-extending care or hope for a cure, many parents refused to put their terminally ill kids in hospice, thinking it was tantamount to giving up on them. That meant the whole family missed out on the support hospice can provide, not just pain relief and comfort for the dying child, but emotional and spiritual care for parents and siblings under extreme duress.

TrinityKids Care, run by the large national Catholic health system Providence, doesn’t just send nurses, social workers, and chaplains into homes. For patients able to participate, and their siblings, it also offers art and science projects, exercise classes, movies, and music. During the pandemic, these activities have been conducted via Zoom, and volunteers deliver needed supplies to the children’s homes.

The ability to get treatments that prolong their lives is a major reason children in concurrent care are more likely than adults to outlive the 6-months-to-live diagnosis required for hospice.

“Concurrent care, by its very intention, very clearly is going to extend their lives, and by extending their lives they’re no longer going to be hospice-eligible if you use the 6-month life expectancy criteria,” said David Steinhorn, MD, a pediatric intensive care physician in Virginia, who has helped develop numerous children’s hospice programs across the United States.

Another factor is that kids, even sick ones, are simply more robust than many older people.

“Sick kids are often otherwise healthy, except for one organ,” said Debra Lotstein, MD, chief of the division of comfort and palliative care at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. “They may have cancer in their body, but their hearts are good and their lungs are good, compared to a 90-year-old who at baseline is just not as resilient.”

All of Aaron Martinez’s vital organs, except for his brain, seem to be working. “There have been times when we’ve brought him in, and the nurse looks at the chart and looks at him, and she can’t believe it’s that child,” said Mr. Martinez.

When kids live past the 6-month life expectancy, they must be recertified to stay in hospice. In many cases, Dr. Steinhorn said, he is willing to recertify his pediatric patients indefinitely.

Even with doctors advocating for them, it’s not always easy for children to get into hospice care. Most hospices care primarily for adults and are reluctant to take kids.

“The hospice will say: ‘We don’t have the capacity to treat children. Our nurses aren’t trained. It’s different. We just can’t do it,’ ” said Lori Butterworth, cofounder of the Children’s Hospice and Palliative Care Coalition of California in Watsonville. “The other reason is not wanting to, because it’s existentially devastating and sad and hard.”

Finances also play a role. Home hospice care is paid at a per diem rate set by Medicare – slightly over $200 a day for the first 2 months, about $161 a day after that – and it is typically the same for kids and adults. Children, particularly those with rare conditions, often require more intensive and innovative care, so the per diem doesn’t stretch as far.

The concurrent care provision has made taking pediatric patients more viable for hospice organizations, Dr. Steinhorn and others said. Under the ACA, many of the expenses for certain medications and medical services can be shifted to the patient’s primary insurance, leaving hospices responsible for pain relief and comfort care.

Even so, the relatively small number of kids who die each year from protracted ailments hardly makes pediatric hospice an appealing line of business in an industry craving growth, especially one in which private equity investors are active and seeking a big payday.

In California, only 21 of 1,336 hospices reported having a specialized pediatric hospice program, and 59 said they served at least one patient under age 21, according to an analysis of 2020 state data by Cordt Kassner, CEO of Hospice Analytics in Colorado Springs.

Hospice providers that do cater to children often face a more basic challenge: Even with the possibility of concurrent care, many parents still equate hospice with acceptance of death. That was the case initially for Matt and Reese Sonnen, Los Angeles residents whose daughter, Layla, was born with a seizure disorder that had no name: Her brain had simply failed to develop in the womb, and an MRI showed “fluid taking up space where the brain wasn’t,” her mother said.

When Layla’s team first mentioned hospice, “I was in the car on my phone, and I almost crashed the car,” Mrs. Sonnen recalled. “The first thought that came to mind was: ‘It is just the end,’ but we felt she was nowhere near it, because she was strong, she was mighty. She was my little girl. She was going to get through this.”

About 3 months later, as Layla’s nervous system deteriorated, causing her to writhe in pain, her parents agreed to enroll her in hospice with TrinityKids Care. She died weeks later, not long after her second birthday. She was in her mother’s arms, with Mr. Sonnen close by.

“All of a sudden, Layla breathed out a big rush of air. The nurse looked at me and said: ‘That was her last breath.’ I was literally breathing in her last breath,” Mrs. Sonnen recounted. “I never wanted to breathe again, because now I felt I had her in my lungs. Don’t make me laugh, don’t make me exhale.”

Layla’s parents have no regrets about their decision to put her in hospice. “It was the absolute right decision, and in hindsight we should have done it sooner,” Mr. Sonnen said. “She was suffering, and we had blinders on.”

Ms. Pinedo said she is “infinitely grateful” for hospice, despite the heartache of Aaron’s condition. Sometimes the social worker will stop by, she said, just to say hello and drop off a latte, a small gesture that can feel very uplifting. “They’ve been our lifeline,” she said.

Ms. Pinedo talks about a friend of hers with a healthy baby, also named Aaron, who is pregnant with her second child. “All the stuff that was on our list, they’re living. And I love them dearly. But it’s almost hard to look, because it’s like looking at the stuff that you didn’t get. It’s like Christmas Day, staring through the window at the neighbor’s house, and you’re sitting there in the cold.”

Yet she seems palpably torn between that bleak remorse and the unconditional love parents feel toward their children. At one point, Ms. Pinedo interrupted herself midsentence and turned to her son, who was in Mr. Martinez’s arms: “Yes, Papi, you are so stinking cute, and you are still my dream come true.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

POMONA, CALIF. – When you first meet 17-month-old Aaron Martinez, it’s not obvious that something is catastrophically wrong.

What you see is a beautiful little boy with smooth, lustrous skin, an abundance of glossy brown hair, and a disarming smile. What you hear are coos and cries that don’t immediately signal anything is horribly awry.

But his parents, Adriana Pinedo and Hector Martinez, know the truth painfully well.

Although Ms. Pinedo’s doctors and midwife had described the pregnancy as “perfect” for all 9 months, Aaron was born with most of his brain cells dead, the result of two strokes and a massive bleed he sustained while in utero.

Doctors aren’t sure what caused the anomalies that left Aaron with virtually no cognitive function or physical mobility. His voluminous hair hides a head whose circumference is too small for his age. He has epilepsy that triggers multiple seizures each day, and his smile is not always what it seems. “It could be a smile; it could be a seizure,” Ms. Pinedo said.

Shortly after Aaron was born, doctors told Ms. Pinedo, 34, and Mr. Martinez, 35, there was no hope and they should “let nature take its course.” They would learn months later that the doctors had not expected the boy to live more than 5 days. It was on Day 5 that his parents put him in home hospice care, an arrangement that has continued into his second year of life.

The family gets weekly visits from hospice nurses, therapists, social workers, and a chaplain in the cramped one-bedroom apartment they rent from the people who live in the main house on the same lot on a quiet residential street in this Inland Empire city.

One of the main criteria for hospice care, established by Medicare largely for seniors but also applied to children, is a diagnosis of 6 months or less to live. Yet over the course of 17 months, Aaron’s medical team has repeatedly recertified his hospice eligibility.

Under a provision of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, children enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program are allowed, unlike adults, to be in hospice while continuing to receive curative or life-extending care. Commercial insurers are not required to cover this “concurrent care,” but many now do.

More than a decade since its inception, concurrent care is widely credited with improving the quality of life for many terminally ill children, easing stress on the family and, in some cases, sustaining hope for a cure. But the arrangement can contribute to a painful dilemma for parents like Ms. Pinedo and Mr. Martinez, who are torn between their fierce commitment to their son and the futility of knowing that his condition leaves him with no future worth hoping for.

“We could lose a life, but if he continues to live this way, we’ll lose three,” said Ms. Pinedo. “There’s no quality of life for him or for us.”

Aaron’s doctors now say he could conceivably live for years. His body hasn’t stopped growing since he was born. He’s in the 96th percentile for height for his age, and his weight is about average.

His parents have talked about “graduating” him from hospice. But he is never stable for long, and they welcome the visits from their hospice team. The seizures, sometimes 30 a day, are a persistent assault on his brain and, as he grows, the medications intended to control them must be changed or the doses recalibrated. He is at continual risk of gastrointestinal problems and potentially deadly fluid buildup in his lungs.

Ms. Pinedo, who works from home for a nonprofit public health organization, spends much of her time with Aaron, while Mr. Martinez works as a landscaper. She has chosen to live in the moment, she said, because otherwise her mind wanders to a future in which either “he could die – or he won’t, and I’ll end up changing the diapers of a 40-year-old man.” Either of those “are going to suck.”

While cancer is one of the major illnesses afflicting children in hospice, many others, like Aaron, have rare congenital defects, severe neurological impairments, or uncommon metabolic deficiencies.

“We have diseases that families tell us are 1 of 10 cases in the world,” said Glen Komatsu, MD, medical director of Torrance, Calif.–based TrinityKids Care, which provides home hospice services to Aaron and more than 70 other kids in Los Angeles and Orange counties.

In the years leading up to the ACA’s implementation, pediatric health advocates lobbied hard for the concurrent care provision. Without the possibility of life-extending care or hope for a cure, many parents refused to put their terminally ill kids in hospice, thinking it was tantamount to giving up on them. That meant the whole family missed out on the support hospice can provide, not just pain relief and comfort for the dying child, but emotional and spiritual care for parents and siblings under extreme duress.

TrinityKids Care, run by the large national Catholic health system Providence, doesn’t just send nurses, social workers, and chaplains into homes. For patients able to participate, and their siblings, it also offers art and science projects, exercise classes, movies, and music. During the pandemic, these activities have been conducted via Zoom, and volunteers deliver needed supplies to the children’s homes.

The ability to get treatments that prolong their lives is a major reason children in concurrent care are more likely than adults to outlive the 6-months-to-live diagnosis required for hospice.

“Concurrent care, by its very intention, very clearly is going to extend their lives, and by extending their lives they’re no longer going to be hospice-eligible if you use the 6-month life expectancy criteria,” said David Steinhorn, MD, a pediatric intensive care physician in Virginia, who has helped develop numerous children’s hospice programs across the United States.

Another factor is that kids, even sick ones, are simply more robust than many older people.

“Sick kids are often otherwise healthy, except for one organ,” said Debra Lotstein, MD, chief of the division of comfort and palliative care at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. “They may have cancer in their body, but their hearts are good and their lungs are good, compared to a 90-year-old who at baseline is just not as resilient.”

All of Aaron Martinez’s vital organs, except for his brain, seem to be working. “There have been times when we’ve brought him in, and the nurse looks at the chart and looks at him, and she can’t believe it’s that child,” said Mr. Martinez.

When kids live past the 6-month life expectancy, they must be recertified to stay in hospice. In many cases, Dr. Steinhorn said, he is willing to recertify his pediatric patients indefinitely.

Even with doctors advocating for them, it’s not always easy for children to get into hospice care. Most hospices care primarily for adults and are reluctant to take kids.

“The hospice will say: ‘We don’t have the capacity to treat children. Our nurses aren’t trained. It’s different. We just can’t do it,’ ” said Lori Butterworth, cofounder of the Children’s Hospice and Palliative Care Coalition of California in Watsonville. “The other reason is not wanting to, because it’s existentially devastating and sad and hard.”

Finances also play a role. Home hospice care is paid at a per diem rate set by Medicare – slightly over $200 a day for the first 2 months, about $161 a day after that – and it is typically the same for kids and adults. Children, particularly those with rare conditions, often require more intensive and innovative care, so the per diem doesn’t stretch as far.

The concurrent care provision has made taking pediatric patients more viable for hospice organizations, Dr. Steinhorn and others said. Under the ACA, many of the expenses for certain medications and medical services can be shifted to the patient’s primary insurance, leaving hospices responsible for pain relief and comfort care.

Even so, the relatively small number of kids who die each year from protracted ailments hardly makes pediatric hospice an appealing line of business in an industry craving growth, especially one in which private equity investors are active and seeking a big payday.

In California, only 21 of 1,336 hospices reported having a specialized pediatric hospice program, and 59 said they served at least one patient under age 21, according to an analysis of 2020 state data by Cordt Kassner, CEO of Hospice Analytics in Colorado Springs.

Hospice providers that do cater to children often face a more basic challenge: Even with the possibility of concurrent care, many parents still equate hospice with acceptance of death. That was the case initially for Matt and Reese Sonnen, Los Angeles residents whose daughter, Layla, was born with a seizure disorder that had no name: Her brain had simply failed to develop in the womb, and an MRI showed “fluid taking up space where the brain wasn’t,” her mother said.

When Layla’s team first mentioned hospice, “I was in the car on my phone, and I almost crashed the car,” Mrs. Sonnen recalled. “The first thought that came to mind was: ‘It is just the end,’ but we felt she was nowhere near it, because she was strong, she was mighty. She was my little girl. She was going to get through this.”

About 3 months later, as Layla’s nervous system deteriorated, causing her to writhe in pain, her parents agreed to enroll her in hospice with TrinityKids Care. She died weeks later, not long after her second birthday. She was in her mother’s arms, with Mr. Sonnen close by.

“All of a sudden, Layla breathed out a big rush of air. The nurse looked at me and said: ‘That was her last breath.’ I was literally breathing in her last breath,” Mrs. Sonnen recounted. “I never wanted to breathe again, because now I felt I had her in my lungs. Don’t make me laugh, don’t make me exhale.”

Layla’s parents have no regrets about their decision to put her in hospice. “It was the absolute right decision, and in hindsight we should have done it sooner,” Mr. Sonnen said. “She was suffering, and we had blinders on.”

Ms. Pinedo said she is “infinitely grateful” for hospice, despite the heartache of Aaron’s condition. Sometimes the social worker will stop by, she said, just to say hello and drop off a latte, a small gesture that can feel very uplifting. “They’ve been our lifeline,” she said.

Ms. Pinedo talks about a friend of hers with a healthy baby, also named Aaron, who is pregnant with her second child. “All the stuff that was on our list, they’re living. And I love them dearly. But it’s almost hard to look, because it’s like looking at the stuff that you didn’t get. It’s like Christmas Day, staring through the window at the neighbor’s house, and you’re sitting there in the cold.”

Yet she seems palpably torn between that bleak remorse and the unconditional love parents feel toward their children. At one point, Ms. Pinedo interrupted herself midsentence and turned to her son, who was in Mr. Martinez’s arms: “Yes, Papi, you are so stinking cute, and you are still my dream come true.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

POMONA, CALIF. – When you first meet 17-month-old Aaron Martinez, it’s not obvious that something is catastrophically wrong.

What you see is a beautiful little boy with smooth, lustrous skin, an abundance of glossy brown hair, and a disarming smile. What you hear are coos and cries that don’t immediately signal anything is horribly awry.

But his parents, Adriana Pinedo and Hector Martinez, know the truth painfully well.

Although Ms. Pinedo’s doctors and midwife had described the pregnancy as “perfect” for all 9 months, Aaron was born with most of his brain cells dead, the result of two strokes and a massive bleed he sustained while in utero.

Doctors aren’t sure what caused the anomalies that left Aaron with virtually no cognitive function or physical mobility. His voluminous hair hides a head whose circumference is too small for his age. He has epilepsy that triggers multiple seizures each day, and his smile is not always what it seems. “It could be a smile; it could be a seizure,” Ms. Pinedo said.

Shortly after Aaron was born, doctors told Ms. Pinedo, 34, and Mr. Martinez, 35, there was no hope and they should “let nature take its course.” They would learn months later that the doctors had not expected the boy to live more than 5 days. It was on Day 5 that his parents put him in home hospice care, an arrangement that has continued into his second year of life.

The family gets weekly visits from hospice nurses, therapists, social workers, and a chaplain in the cramped one-bedroom apartment they rent from the people who live in the main house on the same lot on a quiet residential street in this Inland Empire city.

One of the main criteria for hospice care, established by Medicare largely for seniors but also applied to children, is a diagnosis of 6 months or less to live. Yet over the course of 17 months, Aaron’s medical team has repeatedly recertified his hospice eligibility.

Under a provision of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, children enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program are allowed, unlike adults, to be in hospice while continuing to receive curative or life-extending care. Commercial insurers are not required to cover this “concurrent care,” but many now do.

More than a decade since its inception, concurrent care is widely credited with improving the quality of life for many terminally ill children, easing stress on the family and, in some cases, sustaining hope for a cure. But the arrangement can contribute to a painful dilemma for parents like Ms. Pinedo and Mr. Martinez, who are torn between their fierce commitment to their son and the futility of knowing that his condition leaves him with no future worth hoping for.

“We could lose a life, but if he continues to live this way, we’ll lose three,” said Ms. Pinedo. “There’s no quality of life for him or for us.”

Aaron’s doctors now say he could conceivably live for years. His body hasn’t stopped growing since he was born. He’s in the 96th percentile for height for his age, and his weight is about average.

His parents have talked about “graduating” him from hospice. But he is never stable for long, and they welcome the visits from their hospice team. The seizures, sometimes 30 a day, are a persistent assault on his brain and, as he grows, the medications intended to control them must be changed or the doses recalibrated. He is at continual risk of gastrointestinal problems and potentially deadly fluid buildup in his lungs.

Ms. Pinedo, who works from home for a nonprofit public health organization, spends much of her time with Aaron, while Mr. Martinez works as a landscaper. She has chosen to live in the moment, she said, because otherwise her mind wanders to a future in which either “he could die – or he won’t, and I’ll end up changing the diapers of a 40-year-old man.” Either of those “are going to suck.”

While cancer is one of the major illnesses afflicting children in hospice, many others, like Aaron, have rare congenital defects, severe neurological impairments, or uncommon metabolic deficiencies.

“We have diseases that families tell us are 1 of 10 cases in the world,” said Glen Komatsu, MD, medical director of Torrance, Calif.–based TrinityKids Care, which provides home hospice services to Aaron and more than 70 other kids in Los Angeles and Orange counties.

In the years leading up to the ACA’s implementation, pediatric health advocates lobbied hard for the concurrent care provision. Without the possibility of life-extending care or hope for a cure, many parents refused to put their terminally ill kids in hospice, thinking it was tantamount to giving up on them. That meant the whole family missed out on the support hospice can provide, not just pain relief and comfort for the dying child, but emotional and spiritual care for parents and siblings under extreme duress.

TrinityKids Care, run by the large national Catholic health system Providence, doesn’t just send nurses, social workers, and chaplains into homes. For patients able to participate, and their siblings, it also offers art and science projects, exercise classes, movies, and music. During the pandemic, these activities have been conducted via Zoom, and volunteers deliver needed supplies to the children’s homes.

The ability to get treatments that prolong their lives is a major reason children in concurrent care are more likely than adults to outlive the 6-months-to-live diagnosis required for hospice.

“Concurrent care, by its very intention, very clearly is going to extend their lives, and by extending their lives they’re no longer going to be hospice-eligible if you use the 6-month life expectancy criteria,” said David Steinhorn, MD, a pediatric intensive care physician in Virginia, who has helped develop numerous children’s hospice programs across the United States.

Another factor is that kids, even sick ones, are simply more robust than many older people.

“Sick kids are often otherwise healthy, except for one organ,” said Debra Lotstein, MD, chief of the division of comfort and palliative care at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. “They may have cancer in their body, but their hearts are good and their lungs are good, compared to a 90-year-old who at baseline is just not as resilient.”

All of Aaron Martinez’s vital organs, except for his brain, seem to be working. “There have been times when we’ve brought him in, and the nurse looks at the chart and looks at him, and she can’t believe it’s that child,” said Mr. Martinez.

When kids live past the 6-month life expectancy, they must be recertified to stay in hospice. In many cases, Dr. Steinhorn said, he is willing to recertify his pediatric patients indefinitely.

Even with doctors advocating for them, it’s not always easy for children to get into hospice care. Most hospices care primarily for adults and are reluctant to take kids.

“The hospice will say: ‘We don’t have the capacity to treat children. Our nurses aren’t trained. It’s different. We just can’t do it,’ ” said Lori Butterworth, cofounder of the Children’s Hospice and Palliative Care Coalition of California in Watsonville. “The other reason is not wanting to, because it’s existentially devastating and sad and hard.”

Finances also play a role. Home hospice care is paid at a per diem rate set by Medicare – slightly over $200 a day for the first 2 months, about $161 a day after that – and it is typically the same for kids and adults. Children, particularly those with rare conditions, often require more intensive and innovative care, so the per diem doesn’t stretch as far.

The concurrent care provision has made taking pediatric patients more viable for hospice organizations, Dr. Steinhorn and others said. Under the ACA, many of the expenses for certain medications and medical services can be shifted to the patient’s primary insurance, leaving hospices responsible for pain relief and comfort care.

Even so, the relatively small number of kids who die each year from protracted ailments hardly makes pediatric hospice an appealing line of business in an industry craving growth, especially one in which private equity investors are active and seeking a big payday.

In California, only 21 of 1,336 hospices reported having a specialized pediatric hospice program, and 59 said they served at least one patient under age 21, according to an analysis of 2020 state data by Cordt Kassner, CEO of Hospice Analytics in Colorado Springs.

Hospice providers that do cater to children often face a more basic challenge: Even with the possibility of concurrent care, many parents still equate hospice with acceptance of death. That was the case initially for Matt and Reese Sonnen, Los Angeles residents whose daughter, Layla, was born with a seizure disorder that had no name: Her brain had simply failed to develop in the womb, and an MRI showed “fluid taking up space where the brain wasn’t,” her mother said.

When Layla’s team first mentioned hospice, “I was in the car on my phone, and I almost crashed the car,” Mrs. Sonnen recalled. “The first thought that came to mind was: ‘It is just the end,’ but we felt she was nowhere near it, because she was strong, she was mighty. She was my little girl. She was going to get through this.”

About 3 months later, as Layla’s nervous system deteriorated, causing her to writhe in pain, her parents agreed to enroll her in hospice with TrinityKids Care. She died weeks later, not long after her second birthday. She was in her mother’s arms, with Mr. Sonnen close by.

“All of a sudden, Layla breathed out a big rush of air. The nurse looked at me and said: ‘That was her last breath.’ I was literally breathing in her last breath,” Mrs. Sonnen recounted. “I never wanted to breathe again, because now I felt I had her in my lungs. Don’t make me laugh, don’t make me exhale.”

Layla’s parents have no regrets about their decision to put her in hospice. “It was the absolute right decision, and in hindsight we should have done it sooner,” Mr. Sonnen said. “She was suffering, and we had blinders on.”

Ms. Pinedo said she is “infinitely grateful” for hospice, despite the heartache of Aaron’s condition. Sometimes the social worker will stop by, she said, just to say hello and drop off a latte, a small gesture that can feel very uplifting. “They’ve been our lifeline,” she said.

Ms. Pinedo talks about a friend of hers with a healthy baby, also named Aaron, who is pregnant with her second child. “All the stuff that was on our list, they’re living. And I love them dearly. But it’s almost hard to look, because it’s like looking at the stuff that you didn’t get. It’s like Christmas Day, staring through the window at the neighbor’s house, and you’re sitting there in the cold.”

Yet she seems palpably torn between that bleak remorse and the unconditional love parents feel toward their children. At one point, Ms. Pinedo interrupted herself midsentence and turned to her son, who was in Mr. Martinez’s arms: “Yes, Papi, you are so stinking cute, and you are still my dream come true.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Mexican researchers found no direct association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and worsening symptoms among 60 patients with Parkinson’s disease. Nonmotor symptoms seemed to improve after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, although the investigators could not verify a causal relationship.

Vaccination programs should continue for patients with Parkinson’s disease, they said, reporting their clinical results at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

The International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society has recommended vaccining patients with Parkinson’s disease. “All approved mRNA-based and viral vector vaccines are not expected to interact with Parkinson’s disease, but patients [still] report concern with regard to the benefits, risks, and safeness in Parkinson’s disease,” Mayela Rodríguez-Violante, MD, MSc, and colleagues wrote in an abstract of their findings.

Social isolation may be contributing to these beliefs and concerns, though this is inconclusive.

Investigators from Mexico City conducted a retrospective study of patients with Parkinson’s disease to see how COVID-19 vaccination affected motor and nonmotor symptoms. They enlisted 60 patients (66.7% were male; aged 65.7 ± 11.35 years) who received either a vector-viral vaccine (Vaxzevria Coronavirus) or an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2).

A Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessed scale differences before and after vaccination, measuring motor involvement (Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale), nonmotor involvement (Non-Motor Rating Scale [NMSS]), cognitive impairment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), and quality of life (8-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire index).

Investigators found no significant difference between scales, although they did notice a marked improvement in non-motor symptoms.

“The main takeaway is that vaccination against COVID-19 does not appear to worsen motor or nonmotor symptoms in persons with Parkinson’s disease. The benefits outweigh the risks,” said Dr. Rodríguez-Violante, the study’s lead author and a movement disorder specialist at the National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Mexico City.

Next steps are to increase the sample size to see if it’s possible to have a similar number in terms of type of vaccine, said Dr. Rodríguez-Violante. “Also, the data presented refers to primary series doses so booster effects will also be studied.”

Few studies have looked at vaccines and their possible effects on this patient population. However, a 2021 study of 181 patients with Parkinson’s disease reported that 2 (1.1%) had adverse effects after receiving the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. One of the patients, a 61-year-old woman with a decade-long history of Parkinson’s disease, developed severe, continuous, generalized dyskinesia 6 hours after a first dose of vaccine. The second patient was 79 years old and had Parkinson’s disease for 5 years. She developed fever, confusion, delusions, and continuous severe dyskinesia for 3 days following her vaccination.

“This highlights that there is a variability in the response triggered by the vaccine that might likely depend on individual immunological profiles … clinicians should be aware of this possibility and monitor their patients after they receive their vaccination,” Roberto Erro, MD, PhD and colleagues wrote in the Movement Disorders journal.

Mexican researchers found no direct association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and worsening symptoms among 60 patients with Parkinson’s disease. Nonmotor symptoms seemed to improve after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, although the investigators could not verify a causal relationship.

Vaccination programs should continue for patients with Parkinson’s disease, they said, reporting their clinical results at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

The International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society has recommended vaccining patients with Parkinson’s disease. “All approved mRNA-based and viral vector vaccines are not expected to interact with Parkinson’s disease, but patients [still] report concern with regard to the benefits, risks, and safeness in Parkinson’s disease,” Mayela Rodríguez-Violante, MD, MSc, and colleagues wrote in an abstract of their findings.

Social isolation may be contributing to these beliefs and concerns, though this is inconclusive.

Investigators from Mexico City conducted a retrospective study of patients with Parkinson’s disease to see how COVID-19 vaccination affected motor and nonmotor symptoms. They enlisted 60 patients (66.7% were male; aged 65.7 ± 11.35 years) who received either a vector-viral vaccine (Vaxzevria Coronavirus) or an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2).

A Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessed scale differences before and after vaccination, measuring motor involvement (Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale), nonmotor involvement (Non-Motor Rating Scale [NMSS]), cognitive impairment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), and quality of life (8-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire index).

Investigators found no significant difference between scales, although they did notice a marked improvement in non-motor symptoms.

“The main takeaway is that vaccination against COVID-19 does not appear to worsen motor or nonmotor symptoms in persons with Parkinson’s disease. The benefits outweigh the risks,” said Dr. Rodríguez-Violante, the study’s lead author and a movement disorder specialist at the National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Mexico City.

Next steps are to increase the sample size to see if it’s possible to have a similar number in terms of type of vaccine, said Dr. Rodríguez-Violante. “Also, the data presented refers to primary series doses so booster effects will also be studied.”

Few studies have looked at vaccines and their possible effects on this patient population. However, a 2021 study of 181 patients with Parkinson’s disease reported that 2 (1.1%) had adverse effects after receiving the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. One of the patients, a 61-year-old woman with a decade-long history of Parkinson’s disease, developed severe, continuous, generalized dyskinesia 6 hours after a first dose of vaccine. The second patient was 79 years old and had Parkinson’s disease for 5 years. She developed fever, confusion, delusions, and continuous severe dyskinesia for 3 days following her vaccination.

“This highlights that there is a variability in the response triggered by the vaccine that might likely depend on individual immunological profiles … clinicians should be aware of this possibility and monitor their patients after they receive their vaccination,” Roberto Erro, MD, PhD and colleagues wrote in the Movement Disorders journal.

Mexican researchers found no direct association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and worsening symptoms among 60 patients with Parkinson’s disease. Nonmotor symptoms seemed to improve after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, although the investigators could not verify a causal relationship.

Vaccination programs should continue for patients with Parkinson’s disease, they said, reporting their clinical results at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

The International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society has recommended vaccining patients with Parkinson’s disease. “All approved mRNA-based and viral vector vaccines are not expected to interact with Parkinson’s disease, but patients [still] report concern with regard to the benefits, risks, and safeness in Parkinson’s disease,” Mayela Rodríguez-Violante, MD, MSc, and colleagues wrote in an abstract of their findings.

Social isolation may be contributing to these beliefs and concerns, though this is inconclusive.

Investigators from Mexico City conducted a retrospective study of patients with Parkinson’s disease to see how COVID-19 vaccination affected motor and nonmotor symptoms. They enlisted 60 patients (66.7% were male; aged 65.7 ± 11.35 years) who received either a vector-viral vaccine (Vaxzevria Coronavirus) or an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2).

A Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessed scale differences before and after vaccination, measuring motor involvement (Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale), nonmotor involvement (Non-Motor Rating Scale [NMSS]), cognitive impairment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), and quality of life (8-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire index).

Investigators found no significant difference between scales, although they did notice a marked improvement in non-motor symptoms.

“The main takeaway is that vaccination against COVID-19 does not appear to worsen motor or nonmotor symptoms in persons with Parkinson’s disease. The benefits outweigh the risks,” said Dr. Rodríguez-Violante, the study’s lead author and a movement disorder specialist at the National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Mexico City.

Next steps are to increase the sample size to see if it’s possible to have a similar number in terms of type of vaccine, said Dr. Rodríguez-Violante. “Also, the data presented refers to primary series doses so booster effects will also be studied.”

Few studies have looked at vaccines and their possible effects on this patient population. However, a 2021 study of 181 patients with Parkinson’s disease reported that 2 (1.1%) had adverse effects after receiving the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. One of the patients, a 61-year-old woman with a decade-long history of Parkinson’s disease, developed severe, continuous, generalized dyskinesia 6 hours after a first dose of vaccine. The second patient was 79 years old and had Parkinson’s disease for 5 years. She developed fever, confusion, delusions, and continuous severe dyskinesia for 3 days following her vaccination.

“This highlights that there is a variability in the response triggered by the vaccine that might likely depend on individual immunological profiles … clinicians should be aware of this possibility and monitor their patients after they receive their vaccination,” Roberto Erro, MD, PhD and colleagues wrote in the Movement Disorders journal.