Key clinical point: Ustekinumab was effective and relatively safe in a real-world cohort of patients with Crohn’s disease (CD).

Major finding: After 104 weeks of ustekinumab treatment, 34.0% of patients were in corticosteroid-free clinical remission (Cf-CR). Among patients who were in Cf-CR at week 24, 48.1% remained at Cf-CR at week 104. Lack of response (61.7%) and loss of response (18.3%) were the main reasons for treatment discontinuation. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from a cohort study of 252 patients with CD who initiated ustekinumab and completed at least 2 years of follow-up.

Disclosures: No information on funding was available. The authors declared serving as a speaker, consultant, principal investigator, advisory board member for and/or receiving sponsorship, grants/honoraria, advisory, and/or speaker fees from multiple sources.

Source: Straatmijer T et al. J Crohns Colitis. 2021 Apr 28. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab081.

Key clinical point: Ustekinumab was effective and relatively safe in a real-world cohort of patients with Crohn’s disease (CD).

Major finding: After 104 weeks of ustekinumab treatment, 34.0% of patients were in corticosteroid-free clinical remission (Cf-CR). Among patients who were in Cf-CR at week 24, 48.1% remained at Cf-CR at week 104. Lack of response (61.7%) and loss of response (18.3%) were the main reasons for treatment discontinuation. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from a cohort study of 252 patients with CD who initiated ustekinumab and completed at least 2 years of follow-up.

Disclosures: No information on funding was available. The authors declared serving as a speaker, consultant, principal investigator, advisory board member for and/or receiving sponsorship, grants/honoraria, advisory, and/or speaker fees from multiple sources.

Source: Straatmijer T et al. J Crohns Colitis. 2021 Apr 28. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab081.

Key clinical point: Ustekinumab was effective and relatively safe in a real-world cohort of patients with Crohn’s disease (CD).

Major finding: After 104 weeks of ustekinumab treatment, 34.0% of patients were in corticosteroid-free clinical remission (Cf-CR). Among patients who were in Cf-CR at week 24, 48.1% remained at Cf-CR at week 104. Lack of response (61.7%) and loss of response (18.3%) were the main reasons for treatment discontinuation. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from a cohort study of 252 patients with CD who initiated ustekinumab and completed at least 2 years of follow-up.

Disclosures: No information on funding was available. The authors declared serving as a speaker, consultant, principal investigator, advisory board member for and/or receiving sponsorship, grants/honoraria, advisory, and/or speaker fees from multiple sources.

Source: Straatmijer T et al. J Crohns Colitis. 2021 Apr 28. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab081.

Key clinical point: Patients with an acute flare of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) required significantly more rescue biologics or cyclosporine. Additionally, IVMP significantly reduced rates of hypokalemia compared with intravenous hydrocortisone (IVHC).

Major finding: IVMP was associated with a greater requirement for rescue biologics or cyclosporine (odds ratio [OR], 2.79; P less than .001) and lower rates of hypokalemia (OR, 0.49; P = .005) than IVHC.

Study details: This was a multicenter cohort study of 359 patients hospitalized with an acute flare of IBD and treated with either IVMP 60 mg daily (n=129) or IVHC 100 mg 4 times daily (n=230).

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. All the authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Schauer C et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 May 3. doi: 10.1111/jgh.15535.

Key clinical point: Patients with an acute flare of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) required significantly more rescue biologics or cyclosporine. Additionally, IVMP significantly reduced rates of hypokalemia compared with intravenous hydrocortisone (IVHC).

Major finding: IVMP was associated with a greater requirement for rescue biologics or cyclosporine (odds ratio [OR], 2.79; P less than .001) and lower rates of hypokalemia (OR, 0.49; P = .005) than IVHC.

Study details: This was a multicenter cohort study of 359 patients hospitalized with an acute flare of IBD and treated with either IVMP 60 mg daily (n=129) or IVHC 100 mg 4 times daily (n=230).

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. All the authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Schauer C et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 May 3. doi: 10.1111/jgh.15535.

Key clinical point: Patients with an acute flare of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) required significantly more rescue biologics or cyclosporine. Additionally, IVMP significantly reduced rates of hypokalemia compared with intravenous hydrocortisone (IVHC).

Major finding: IVMP was associated with a greater requirement for rescue biologics or cyclosporine (odds ratio [OR], 2.79; P less than .001) and lower rates of hypokalemia (OR, 0.49; P = .005) than IVHC.

Study details: This was a multicenter cohort study of 359 patients hospitalized with an acute flare of IBD and treated with either IVMP 60 mg daily (n=129) or IVHC 100 mg 4 times daily (n=230).

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. All the authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Schauer C et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 May 3. doi: 10.1111/jgh.15535.

Key clinical point: A significant proportion of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remain in remission after discontinuation of antitumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) post clinical remission.

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 34 months, incidence rate of relapse was 12% per patient-year (95% confidence interval [CI], 11-14) and the cumulative incidence of relapse was 50% (95% CI, 47-53) with 19%, 31%, 38%, 44%, and 48% at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of follow-up.

Study details: Data come from an extension of the EVODIS study that included 1,055 patients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis who discontinued anti-TNF therapy after achieving clinical remission.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. Some of the authors reported serving as a speaker, consultant, advisory member, and receiving research and/or education funding from multiple sources.

Source: Casanova MJ et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021 May 7. doi: 10.1111/apt.16361.

Key clinical point: A significant proportion of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remain in remission after discontinuation of antitumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) post clinical remission.

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 34 months, incidence rate of relapse was 12% per patient-year (95% confidence interval [CI], 11-14) and the cumulative incidence of relapse was 50% (95% CI, 47-53) with 19%, 31%, 38%, 44%, and 48% at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of follow-up.

Study details: Data come from an extension of the EVODIS study that included 1,055 patients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis who discontinued anti-TNF therapy after achieving clinical remission.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. Some of the authors reported serving as a speaker, consultant, advisory member, and receiving research and/or education funding from multiple sources.

Source: Casanova MJ et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021 May 7. doi: 10.1111/apt.16361.

Key clinical point: A significant proportion of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remain in remission after discontinuation of antitumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) post clinical remission.

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 34 months, incidence rate of relapse was 12% per patient-year (95% confidence interval [CI], 11-14) and the cumulative incidence of relapse was 50% (95% CI, 47-53) with 19%, 31%, 38%, 44%, and 48% at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of follow-up.

Study details: Data come from an extension of the EVODIS study that included 1,055 patients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis who discontinued anti-TNF therapy after achieving clinical remission.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. Some of the authors reported serving as a speaker, consultant, advisory member, and receiving research and/or education funding from multiple sources.

Source: Casanova MJ et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021 May 7. doi: 10.1111/apt.16361.

Key clinical point: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with infliximab vs. vedolizumab showed attenuated immunogenicity to a single dose of BNT162b2 and adenovirus-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Reassuringly, second dose of the vaccine led to seroconversion in most patients.

Major finding: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were lower in patients treated with infliximab vs. vedolizumab following vaccination with a single dose of either BNT162b2 (fold change [FC], 0.29; P less than .0001) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (FC, 0.39; P less than .0001). After second vaccine dose, 85% of infliximab- and 86% of vedolizumab-treated patients seroconverted (P = .68).

Study details: Findings are from the CLARITY IBD study that included patients with IBD without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who were treated with infliximab (n=865) or vedolizumab (n=428).

Disclosures: The study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (Switzerland), Biogen GmbH (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare (South Korea), and others. Some of the authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, and/or financial or nonfinancial support from multiple sources.

Source: Kennedy NA et al. Gut. 2021 Apr 26. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324789.

Key clinical point: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with infliximab vs. vedolizumab showed attenuated immunogenicity to a single dose of BNT162b2 and adenovirus-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Reassuringly, second dose of the vaccine led to seroconversion in most patients.

Major finding: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were lower in patients treated with infliximab vs. vedolizumab following vaccination with a single dose of either BNT162b2 (fold change [FC], 0.29; P less than .0001) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (FC, 0.39; P less than .0001). After second vaccine dose, 85% of infliximab- and 86% of vedolizumab-treated patients seroconverted (P = .68).

Study details: Findings are from the CLARITY IBD study that included patients with IBD without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who were treated with infliximab (n=865) or vedolizumab (n=428).

Disclosures: The study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (Switzerland), Biogen GmbH (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare (South Korea), and others. Some of the authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, and/or financial or nonfinancial support from multiple sources.

Source: Kennedy NA et al. Gut. 2021 Apr 26. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324789.

Key clinical point: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with infliximab vs. vedolizumab showed attenuated immunogenicity to a single dose of BNT162b2 and adenovirus-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Reassuringly, second dose of the vaccine led to seroconversion in most patients.

Major finding: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were lower in patients treated with infliximab vs. vedolizumab following vaccination with a single dose of either BNT162b2 (fold change [FC], 0.29; P less than .0001) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (FC, 0.39; P less than .0001). After second vaccine dose, 85% of infliximab- and 86% of vedolizumab-treated patients seroconverted (P = .68).

Study details: Findings are from the CLARITY IBD study that included patients with IBD without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who were treated with infliximab (n=865) or vedolizumab (n=428).

Disclosures: The study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (Switzerland), Biogen GmbH (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare (South Korea), and others. Some of the authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, and/or financial or nonfinancial support from multiple sources.

Source: Kennedy NA et al. Gut. 2021 Apr 26. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324789.

For physicians who are just starting out or thinking about moving, the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” could be the land of opportunity, according to a recent Medscape analysis.

In a ranking of the 50 states, Minnesota “claimed top marks for livability, low incidence of adverse actions against doctors, and the performance of its health system,” Shelly Reese wrote in Medscape’s “Best & Worst Places to Practice 2021.”

Minnesota is below average where it’s good to be below average – share of physicians reporting burnout and/or depression – but above average in the share of physicians who say they’re “very happy” outside of work, Medscape said in the annual report.

Second on this year’s list is Wisconsin, which benefits from low levels of malpractice payouts and adverse actions and a high level of livability. Third place went to Washington (called the most livable state in the country by U.S. News and World Report), fourth to Colorado (physicians happy at and outside of work, high retention rate for residents), and fifth to Utah (low crime rate, high quality of life), Medscape said.

At the bottom of the list for 2021 is West Virginia, where physicians “may confront a bevy of challenges” in the form of low livability, a high rate of adverse actions, and relatively high malpractice payouts, Ms. Reese noted in the report.

State number 49 is Louisiana, where livability is low, malpractice payouts are high, and more than half of physicians say that they’re burned out and/or depressed. New Mexico is 48th (very high rate of adverse actions, poor resident retention), Nevada is 47th (low marks for avoidable hospital use and disparity in care), and Rhode Island is 46th (high malpractice payouts, low physician compensation), Medscape said.

Continuing with the group-of-five theme, America’s three most populous states finished in the top half of the ranking – California 16th, Texas 11th, and Florida 21st – but New York and Pennsylvania, numbers four and five by population size, did not.

The rankings are based on states’ performance in 10 different measures, three of which were sourced from Medscape surveys – happiness at work, happiness outside of work, and burnout/depression – and seven from other organizations: adverse actions against physicians, malpractice payouts, compensation (adjusted for cost of living), overall health, health system performance, overall livability, resident retention.
 

[email protected]

For physicians who are just starting out or thinking about moving, the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” could be the land of opportunity, according to a recent Medscape analysis.

In a ranking of the 50 states, Minnesota “claimed top marks for livability, low incidence of adverse actions against doctors, and the performance of its health system,” Shelly Reese wrote in Medscape’s “Best & Worst Places to Practice 2021.”

Minnesota is below average where it’s good to be below average – share of physicians reporting burnout and/or depression – but above average in the share of physicians who say they’re “very happy” outside of work, Medscape said in the annual report.

Second on this year’s list is Wisconsin, which benefits from low levels of malpractice payouts and adverse actions and a high level of livability. Third place went to Washington (called the most livable state in the country by U.S. News and World Report), fourth to Colorado (physicians happy at and outside of work, high retention rate for residents), and fifth to Utah (low crime rate, high quality of life), Medscape said.

At the bottom of the list for 2021 is West Virginia, where physicians “may confront a bevy of challenges” in the form of low livability, a high rate of adverse actions, and relatively high malpractice payouts, Ms. Reese noted in the report.

State number 49 is Louisiana, where livability is low, malpractice payouts are high, and more than half of physicians say that they’re burned out and/or depressed. New Mexico is 48th (very high rate of adverse actions, poor resident retention), Nevada is 47th (low marks for avoidable hospital use and disparity in care), and Rhode Island is 46th (high malpractice payouts, low physician compensation), Medscape said.

Continuing with the group-of-five theme, America’s three most populous states finished in the top half of the ranking – California 16th, Texas 11th, and Florida 21st – but New York and Pennsylvania, numbers four and five by population size, did not.

The rankings are based on states’ performance in 10 different measures, three of which were sourced from Medscape surveys – happiness at work, happiness outside of work, and burnout/depression – and seven from other organizations: adverse actions against physicians, malpractice payouts, compensation (adjusted for cost of living), overall health, health system performance, overall livability, resident retention.
 

[email protected]

For physicians who are just starting out or thinking about moving, the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” could be the land of opportunity, according to a recent Medscape analysis.

In a ranking of the 50 states, Minnesota “claimed top marks for livability, low incidence of adverse actions against doctors, and the performance of its health system,” Shelly Reese wrote in Medscape’s “Best & Worst Places to Practice 2021.”

Minnesota is below average where it’s good to be below average – share of physicians reporting burnout and/or depression – but above average in the share of physicians who say they’re “very happy” outside of work, Medscape said in the annual report.

Second on this year’s list is Wisconsin, which benefits from low levels of malpractice payouts and adverse actions and a high level of livability. Third place went to Washington (called the most livable state in the country by U.S. News and World Report), fourth to Colorado (physicians happy at and outside of work, high retention rate for residents), and fifth to Utah (low crime rate, high quality of life), Medscape said.

At the bottom of the list for 2021 is West Virginia, where physicians “may confront a bevy of challenges” in the form of low livability, a high rate of adverse actions, and relatively high malpractice payouts, Ms. Reese noted in the report.

State number 49 is Louisiana, where livability is low, malpractice payouts are high, and more than half of physicians say that they’re burned out and/or depressed. New Mexico is 48th (very high rate of adverse actions, poor resident retention), Nevada is 47th (low marks for avoidable hospital use and disparity in care), and Rhode Island is 46th (high malpractice payouts, low physician compensation), Medscape said.

Continuing with the group-of-five theme, America’s three most populous states finished in the top half of the ranking – California 16th, Texas 11th, and Florida 21st – but New York and Pennsylvania, numbers four and five by population size, did not.

The rankings are based on states’ performance in 10 different measures, three of which were sourced from Medscape surveys – happiness at work, happiness outside of work, and burnout/depression – and seven from other organizations: adverse actions against physicians, malpractice payouts, compensation (adjusted for cost of living), overall health, health system performance, overall livability, resident retention.
 

[email protected]

For the eighth consecutive year, Boston Children’s Hospital has captured the no. 1 spot in the national honor roll of U.S. News & World Report’s Best Children’s Hospitals.

Released June 15, the 2021-2022 rankings, which acknowledge 50 U.S. centers for delivering exceptional care in several specialties, also give the Massachusetts hospital the top spot in 4 of 10 pediatric specialties assessed: nephrology, neurology and neurosurgery, pulmonology and lung surgery, and urology.

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia retains second spot in the annually updated list, and Texas Children’s Hospital, in Houston, moves up a rung to third place, bumping Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center from third to fourth place. Children’s Hospital Los Angeles comes in at no. 5.

The remaining top 10 placements, in descending order, are as follows:

Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora; Children’s National Hospital in Washington; Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio; UPMS Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh; and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford (Calif.).
 

New regional rankings

This year’s edition offers something new, adding rankings within states and multiple-state rankings within seven regions to facilitate choice. “The Best Children’s Hospitals rankings have always highlighted hospitals that excel in specialized care,” said Ben Harder, chief of health analysis and managing editor at U.S. News, in a press release. “Now, this year’s new state and regional rankings can help families identify conveniently located hospitals capable of meeting their child’s needs. As the pandemic continues to affect travel, finding high-quality care close to home has never been more important.”

Across the seven regions, the top-ranked institutions are as follows:

• Mid-Atlantic – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
• Midwest – Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
• New England – Boston Children’s Hospital.
• Pacific – Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.
• Rocky Mountains – Children’s Hospital Colorado.
• Southeast – Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital of Vanderbilt, in Nashville, Tenn.
• Southwest – Texas Children’s Hospital.

Specialties

Boston Children’s not only topped the overall list but also led in four specialties. For the other six specialties that were ranked, the top hospitals on the honor roll are as follows:

• Cancer – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
• Cardiology and heart surgery – Texas Children’s Hospital.
• Diabetes and endocrinology – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
• Gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery – Children’s Hospital Colorado.
• Neonatology – Children’s National Hospital.
• Orthopedics – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

For the past 15 years, the objective of the rankings has been to offer a starting point for parents in making decisions about the best place to take very sick children for high-quality care. The editors of the rankings acknowledge that considerations of travel costs and insurance coverage are other factors to consider.
 

Helpful for families

The rankings are helpful for families, according to Joe W. St. Geme, III, MD, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s physician-in-chief and chair of its department of pediatrics. “Some parents, especially those coming from outside an area, find them useful when deciding on care away from home,” he told this news organization. “Most types of pediatric care are available in the community, but sometimes a child has an unusual disease or complex disease for which local care is not available.”

Dr. St. Geme said the new regional rankings may be useful in helping parents decide where to bring a child for care that is closer to where they live.

A top ranking from U.S. News is just one indication of a hospital›s overall performance, according to Angela Lorts, MD, MBA, director of the Ventricular Assist Device Program, at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“Parents seeking care for their child should use the data to ask questions and understand the limitations,” she told this news organization. “Rankings are only based on a small subset of the children we care for. Many of the metrics may not pertain to their child and may not reflect the care they will receive.”

In her view, ranking will not give parents all the information they need about medical care and outcomes for specific conditions.
 

Hospital reaction

Hospitals can use the rankings to target improvements, says Dr. St. Geme. “These rankings can provide an opportunity for some benchmarking, to see what other institutions are doing and how they’re able to deliver care. They can serve as a source of ideas and can influence planning,” he said.

He cautioned that the data are not as complete as they could be. “A number of services are not included, and we try to keep that in mind,” he said.

Rankings may also affect recruitment, Dr. St. Geme added, because higher-ranked institutions may find it easier to attract sought-after clinicians and investigators in needed areas.

Another sphere of influence is philanthropy and fund raising. “People are much more likely to consider making both small and large donations to a high-ranked institution,” said J. Howard Smart, MD, chair of pediatrics at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group and chair-elect of the physician leadership council at Sharp Mary Birch Hospital for Women and Newborns in San Diego.

Dr. St. Geme agrees. “Philanthropists are interested in making investments where they feel they’re a sure bet, and rankings may indicate a sure bet. But their impact on government funding and grant support is probably less.”

Ultimately, however, some families may not have lot of choice in where to go when their children are sick, Dr. Smart said. “And people probably don’t choose a location to live in based on nearby children’s hospitals the way they do for schools,” he said.

What about hospitals that continue to rank much lower on the 50-institution list – excellent though they must be to make it onto the honor roll. “To be on the list but not to have risen in rank in recent years might be a disappointment,” said Dr. St. Geme. “But it might also motivate a hospital to think about making internal investments in order to strengthen a particular service. And it may motivate nonranked hospitals to improve care in order to break into the list.”

Dr. Lorts points out that the annual survey process requires hospitals to track the clinical outcomes of a subset of patients, which may lead to improvement in these areas. It also requires data collection on structure and process, which drives needs assessments of select hospital areas. “But ideally, all hospitals would be tracking important outcomes, benchmarking to peer hospitals, and improving where needed without the U.S. News incentive,” she said.

This year’s data, compiled by research and consulting firm RTI International, derive from feedback on more than 1,200 questions provided by 118 responding institutions. Details on each hospital on the list and the methodology used in the analysis are available on U.S. News & World Report’s website.

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

For the eighth consecutive year, Boston Children’s Hospital has captured the no. 1 spot in the national honor roll of U.S. News & World Report’s Best Children’s Hospitals.

Released June 15, the 2021-2022 rankings, which acknowledge 50 U.S. centers for delivering exceptional care in several specialties, also give the Massachusetts hospital the top spot in 4 of 10 pediatric specialties assessed: nephrology, neurology and neurosurgery, pulmonology and lung surgery, and urology.

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia retains second spot in the annually updated list, and Texas Children’s Hospital, in Houston, moves up a rung to third place, bumping Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center from third to fourth place. Children’s Hospital Los Angeles comes in at no. 5.

The remaining top 10 placements, in descending order, are as follows:

Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora; Children’s National Hospital in Washington; Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio; UPMS Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh; and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford (Calif.).
 

New regional rankings

This year’s edition offers something new, adding rankings within states and multiple-state rankings within seven regions to facilitate choice. “The Best Children’s Hospitals rankings have always highlighted hospitals that excel in specialized care,” said Ben Harder, chief of health analysis and managing editor at U.S. News, in a press release. “Now, this year’s new state and regional rankings can help families identify conveniently located hospitals capable of meeting their child’s needs. As the pandemic continues to affect travel, finding high-quality care close to home has never been more important.”

Across the seven regions, the top-ranked institutions are as follows:

• Mid-Atlantic – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
• Midwest – Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
• New England – Boston Children’s Hospital.
• Pacific – Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.
• Rocky Mountains – Children’s Hospital Colorado.
• Southeast – Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital of Vanderbilt, in Nashville, Tenn.
• Southwest – Texas Children’s Hospital.

Specialties

Boston Children’s not only topped the overall list but also led in four specialties. For the other six specialties that were ranked, the top hospitals on the honor roll are as follows:

• Cancer – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
• Cardiology and heart surgery – Texas Children’s Hospital.
• Diabetes and endocrinology – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
• Gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery – Children’s Hospital Colorado.
• Neonatology – Children’s National Hospital.
• Orthopedics – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

For the past 15 years, the objective of the rankings has been to offer a starting point for parents in making decisions about the best place to take very sick children for high-quality care. The editors of the rankings acknowledge that considerations of travel costs and insurance coverage are other factors to consider.
 

Helpful for families

The rankings are helpful for families, according to Joe W. St. Geme, III, MD, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s physician-in-chief and chair of its department of pediatrics. “Some parents, especially those coming from outside an area, find them useful when deciding on care away from home,” he told this news organization. “Most types of pediatric care are available in the community, but sometimes a child has an unusual disease or complex disease for which local care is not available.”

Dr. St. Geme said the new regional rankings may be useful in helping parents decide where to bring a child for care that is closer to where they live.

A top ranking from U.S. News is just one indication of a hospital›s overall performance, according to Angela Lorts, MD, MBA, director of the Ventricular Assist Device Program, at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“Parents seeking care for their child should use the data to ask questions and understand the limitations,” she told this news organization. “Rankings are only based on a small subset of the children we care for. Many of the metrics may not pertain to their child and may not reflect the care they will receive.”

In her view, ranking will not give parents all the information they need about medical care and outcomes for specific conditions.
 

Hospital reaction

Hospitals can use the rankings to target improvements, says Dr. St. Geme. “These rankings can provide an opportunity for some benchmarking, to see what other institutions are doing and how they’re able to deliver care. They can serve as a source of ideas and can influence planning,” he said.

He cautioned that the data are not as complete as they could be. “A number of services are not included, and we try to keep that in mind,” he said.

Rankings may also affect recruitment, Dr. St. Geme added, because higher-ranked institutions may find it easier to attract sought-after clinicians and investigators in needed areas.

Another sphere of influence is philanthropy and fund raising. “People are much more likely to consider making both small and large donations to a high-ranked institution,” said J. Howard Smart, MD, chair of pediatrics at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group and chair-elect of the physician leadership council at Sharp Mary Birch Hospital for Women and Newborns in San Diego.

Dr. St. Geme agrees. “Philanthropists are interested in making investments where they feel they’re a sure bet, and rankings may indicate a sure bet. But their impact on government funding and grant support is probably less.”

Ultimately, however, some families may not have lot of choice in where to go when their children are sick, Dr. Smart said. “And people probably don’t choose a location to live in based on nearby children’s hospitals the way they do for schools,” he said.

What about hospitals that continue to rank much lower on the 50-institution list – excellent though they must be to make it onto the honor roll. “To be on the list but not to have risen in rank in recent years might be a disappointment,” said Dr. St. Geme. “But it might also motivate a hospital to think about making internal investments in order to strengthen a particular service. And it may motivate nonranked hospitals to improve care in order to break into the list.”

Dr. Lorts points out that the annual survey process requires hospitals to track the clinical outcomes of a subset of patients, which may lead to improvement in these areas. It also requires data collection on structure and process, which drives needs assessments of select hospital areas. “But ideally, all hospitals would be tracking important outcomes, benchmarking to peer hospitals, and improving where needed without the U.S. News incentive,” she said.

This year’s data, compiled by research and consulting firm RTI International, derive from feedback on more than 1,200 questions provided by 118 responding institutions. Details on each hospital on the list and the methodology used in the analysis are available on U.S. News & World Report’s website.

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

For the eighth consecutive year, Boston Children’s Hospital has captured the no. 1 spot in the national honor roll of U.S. News & World Report’s Best Children’s Hospitals.

Released June 15, the 2021-2022 rankings, which acknowledge 50 U.S. centers for delivering exceptional care in several specialties, also give the Massachusetts hospital the top spot in 4 of 10 pediatric specialties assessed: nephrology, neurology and neurosurgery, pulmonology and lung surgery, and urology.

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia retains second spot in the annually updated list, and Texas Children’s Hospital, in Houston, moves up a rung to third place, bumping Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center from third to fourth place. Children’s Hospital Los Angeles comes in at no. 5.

The remaining top 10 placements, in descending order, are as follows:

Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora; Children’s National Hospital in Washington; Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio; UPMS Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh; and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford (Calif.).
 

New regional rankings

This year’s edition offers something new, adding rankings within states and multiple-state rankings within seven regions to facilitate choice. “The Best Children’s Hospitals rankings have always highlighted hospitals that excel in specialized care,” said Ben Harder, chief of health analysis and managing editor at U.S. News, in a press release. “Now, this year’s new state and regional rankings can help families identify conveniently located hospitals capable of meeting their child’s needs. As the pandemic continues to affect travel, finding high-quality care close to home has never been more important.”

Across the seven regions, the top-ranked institutions are as follows:

• Mid-Atlantic – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
• Midwest – Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
• New England – Boston Children’s Hospital.
• Pacific – Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.
• Rocky Mountains – Children’s Hospital Colorado.
• Southeast – Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital of Vanderbilt, in Nashville, Tenn.
• Southwest – Texas Children’s Hospital.

Specialties

Boston Children’s not only topped the overall list but also led in four specialties. For the other six specialties that were ranked, the top hospitals on the honor roll are as follows:

• Cancer – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
• Cardiology and heart surgery – Texas Children’s Hospital.
• Diabetes and endocrinology – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
• Gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery – Children’s Hospital Colorado.
• Neonatology – Children’s National Hospital.
• Orthopedics – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

For the past 15 years, the objective of the rankings has been to offer a starting point for parents in making decisions about the best place to take very sick children for high-quality care. The editors of the rankings acknowledge that considerations of travel costs and insurance coverage are other factors to consider.
 

Helpful for families

The rankings are helpful for families, according to Joe W. St. Geme, III, MD, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s physician-in-chief and chair of its department of pediatrics. “Some parents, especially those coming from outside an area, find them useful when deciding on care away from home,” he told this news organization. “Most types of pediatric care are available in the community, but sometimes a child has an unusual disease or complex disease for which local care is not available.”

Dr. St. Geme said the new regional rankings may be useful in helping parents decide where to bring a child for care that is closer to where they live.

A top ranking from U.S. News is just one indication of a hospital›s overall performance, according to Angela Lorts, MD, MBA, director of the Ventricular Assist Device Program, at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“Parents seeking care for their child should use the data to ask questions and understand the limitations,” she told this news organization. “Rankings are only based on a small subset of the children we care for. Many of the metrics may not pertain to their child and may not reflect the care they will receive.”

In her view, ranking will not give parents all the information they need about medical care and outcomes for specific conditions.
 

Hospital reaction

Hospitals can use the rankings to target improvements, says Dr. St. Geme. “These rankings can provide an opportunity for some benchmarking, to see what other institutions are doing and how they’re able to deliver care. They can serve as a source of ideas and can influence planning,” he said.

He cautioned that the data are not as complete as they could be. “A number of services are not included, and we try to keep that in mind,” he said.

Rankings may also affect recruitment, Dr. St. Geme added, because higher-ranked institutions may find it easier to attract sought-after clinicians and investigators in needed areas.

Another sphere of influence is philanthropy and fund raising. “People are much more likely to consider making both small and large donations to a high-ranked institution,” said J. Howard Smart, MD, chair of pediatrics at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group and chair-elect of the physician leadership council at Sharp Mary Birch Hospital for Women and Newborns in San Diego.

Dr. St. Geme agrees. “Philanthropists are interested in making investments where they feel they’re a sure bet, and rankings may indicate a sure bet. But their impact on government funding and grant support is probably less.”

Ultimately, however, some families may not have lot of choice in where to go when their children are sick, Dr. Smart said. “And people probably don’t choose a location to live in based on nearby children’s hospitals the way they do for schools,” he said.

What about hospitals that continue to rank much lower on the 50-institution list – excellent though they must be to make it onto the honor roll. “To be on the list but not to have risen in rank in recent years might be a disappointment,” said Dr. St. Geme. “But it might also motivate a hospital to think about making internal investments in order to strengthen a particular service. And it may motivate nonranked hospitals to improve care in order to break into the list.”

Dr. Lorts points out that the annual survey process requires hospitals to track the clinical outcomes of a subset of patients, which may lead to improvement in these areas. It also requires data collection on structure and process, which drives needs assessments of select hospital areas. “But ideally, all hospitals would be tracking important outcomes, benchmarking to peer hospitals, and improving where needed without the U.S. News incentive,” she said.

This year’s data, compiled by research and consulting firm RTI International, derive from feedback on more than 1,200 questions provided by 118 responding institutions. Details on each hospital on the list and the methodology used in the analysis are available on U.S. News & World Report’s website.

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

A third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine can boost antibody levels in people who previously received a solid organ transplant and had an unsatisfactory response to their first two mRNA shots, according to data from a newly published 30-patient case series.

All of those with low titers before the third dose had high titers after receiving the additional shot, but only about 33% of those with negative initial responses had detectable antibodies after the third dose, according to the paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who keep a COVID-19 vaccine registry, perform antibody tests on all registry subjects and inform them of their results. Registry participants were asked to inform the research team if they received a third dose, and, the research team tracked the immune responses of those who did.

The participants in this case series had low antibody levels and received a third dose of the vaccine on their own between March 20 and May 10 of 2021.
 

Third dose results

In this cases series – thought to be the first to look at third vaccine shots in this type of patient group – all six of those who had low antibody titers before the third dose had high-positive titers after the third dose.

Of the 24 individuals who had negative antibody titers before the third dose, just 6 had high titers after the third dose.

Two of the participants had low-positive titers, and 16 were negative.

“Several of those boosted very nicely into ranges seen, using these assays, in healthy persons,” said William Werbel, MD, a fellow in infectious disease at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who helped lead the study. Those with negative levels, even if they responded, tended to have lower titers, he said.

“The benefits at least from an antibody perspective were not the same for everybody and so this is obviously something that needs to be considered when thinking about selecting patients” for a COVID-19 prevention strategy, he said.

Reactions to the vaccine were low to moderate, such as some arm pain and fatigue.

“Showing that something is safe in that special, vulnerable population is important,” Dr. Werbel said. “We’re all wanting to make sure that we’re doing no harm.”

Dr. Werbel noted that there was no pattern in the small series based on the organ transplanted or in the vaccines used. As their third shot, 15 of the patients received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine; 9 received Moderna; and 6 received Pfizer-BioNTech.
 

Welcome news, but larger studies needed

“To think that a third dose could confer protection for a significant number of people is of course extremely welcome news,” said Christian Larsen, MD, DPhil, professor of surgery in the transplantation division at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the easiest conceivable next intervention.”

He added, “We just want studies to confirm that – larger studies.”

Dr. Werbel stressed the importance of looking at third doses in these patients in a more controlled fashion in a randomized trial, to more carefully monitor safety and how patients fare when starting with one type of vaccine and switching to another, for example.

Richard Wender, MD, chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are a reminder that there is still a lot that is unknown about COVID-19 and vaccination.

“We still don’t know who will or will not benefit from a third dose,” he said. “And our knowledge is evolving.  For example, a recent study suggested that people with previous infection and who are vaccinated may have better and longer protection than people with vaccination alone. We’re still learning.”

He added that specialists, not primary care clinicians, should be relied upon to respond to this emerging vaccination data. Primary care doctors are very busy in other ways – such as in getting children caught up on vaccinations and helping adults return to managing their chronic diseases, Dr. Wender noted.

“Their focus needs to be on helping to overcome hesitancy, mistrust, lack of information, or antivaccination sentiment to help more people feel comfortable being vaccinated – this is a lot of work and needs constant focus. In short, primary care clinicians need to focus chiefly on the unvaccinated,” he said.

“Monitoring immunization recommendations for unique at-risk populations should be the chief responsibility of teams providing subspecialty care, [such as for] transplant patients, people with chronic kidney disease, cancer patients, and people with other chronic illnesses.  This will allow primary care clinicians to tackle their many complex jobs.”
 

Possible solutions for those with low antibody responses

Dr. Larsen said that those with ongoing low antibody responses might still have other immune responses, such as a T-cell response. Such patients also could consider changing their vaccine type, he said.

“At the more significant intervention level, there may be circumstances where one could change the immunosuppressive drugs in a controlled way that might allow a better response,” suggested Dr. Larsen. “That’s obviously going to be something that requires a lot more thought and careful study.”

Dr. Werbel said that other options might need to be considered for those having no response following a third dose. One possibility is trying a vaccine with an adjuvant, such as the Novavax version, which might be more widely available soon.

“If you’re given a third dose of a very immunogenic vaccine – something that should work – and you just have no antibody development, it seems relatively unlikely that doing the same thing again is going to help you from that perspective, and for all we know might expose you to more risk,” Dr. Werbel noted.
 

Participant details

None of the 30 patients were thought to have ever had COVID-19. On average, patients had received their transplant 4.5 years before their original vaccination. In 25 patients, maintenance immunosuppression included tacrolimus or cyclosporine along with mycophenolate. Corticosteroids were also used for 24 patients, sirolimus was used for one patient, and belatacept was used for another patient.

Fifty-seven percent of patients had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine originally, and 43% the Moderna vaccine. Most of the patients were kidney recipients, with two heart, three liver, one lung, one pancreas and one kidney-pancreas.

Dr. Werbel, Dr. Wender, and Dr. Larsen reported no relevant disclosures.

A third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine can boost antibody levels in people who previously received a solid organ transplant and had an unsatisfactory response to their first two mRNA shots, according to data from a newly published 30-patient case series.

All of those with low titers before the third dose had high titers after receiving the additional shot, but only about 33% of those with negative initial responses had detectable antibodies after the third dose, according to the paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who keep a COVID-19 vaccine registry, perform antibody tests on all registry subjects and inform them of their results. Registry participants were asked to inform the research team if they received a third dose, and, the research team tracked the immune responses of those who did.

The participants in this case series had low antibody levels and received a third dose of the vaccine on their own between March 20 and May 10 of 2021.
 

Third dose results

In this cases series – thought to be the first to look at third vaccine shots in this type of patient group – all six of those who had low antibody titers before the third dose had high-positive titers after the third dose.

Of the 24 individuals who had negative antibody titers before the third dose, just 6 had high titers after the third dose.

Two of the participants had low-positive titers, and 16 were negative.

“Several of those boosted very nicely into ranges seen, using these assays, in healthy persons,” said William Werbel, MD, a fellow in infectious disease at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who helped lead the study. Those with negative levels, even if they responded, tended to have lower titers, he said.

“The benefits at least from an antibody perspective were not the same for everybody and so this is obviously something that needs to be considered when thinking about selecting patients” for a COVID-19 prevention strategy, he said.

Reactions to the vaccine were low to moderate, such as some arm pain and fatigue.

“Showing that something is safe in that special, vulnerable population is important,” Dr. Werbel said. “We’re all wanting to make sure that we’re doing no harm.”

Dr. Werbel noted that there was no pattern in the small series based on the organ transplanted or in the vaccines used. As their third shot, 15 of the patients received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine; 9 received Moderna; and 6 received Pfizer-BioNTech.
 

Welcome news, but larger studies needed

“To think that a third dose could confer protection for a significant number of people is of course extremely welcome news,” said Christian Larsen, MD, DPhil, professor of surgery in the transplantation division at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the easiest conceivable next intervention.”

He added, “We just want studies to confirm that – larger studies.”

Dr. Werbel stressed the importance of looking at third doses in these patients in a more controlled fashion in a randomized trial, to more carefully monitor safety and how patients fare when starting with one type of vaccine and switching to another, for example.

Richard Wender, MD, chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are a reminder that there is still a lot that is unknown about COVID-19 and vaccination.

“We still don’t know who will or will not benefit from a third dose,” he said. “And our knowledge is evolving.  For example, a recent study suggested that people with previous infection and who are vaccinated may have better and longer protection than people with vaccination alone. We’re still learning.”

He added that specialists, not primary care clinicians, should be relied upon to respond to this emerging vaccination data. Primary care doctors are very busy in other ways – such as in getting children caught up on vaccinations and helping adults return to managing their chronic diseases, Dr. Wender noted.

“Their focus needs to be on helping to overcome hesitancy, mistrust, lack of information, or antivaccination sentiment to help more people feel comfortable being vaccinated – this is a lot of work and needs constant focus. In short, primary care clinicians need to focus chiefly on the unvaccinated,” he said.

“Monitoring immunization recommendations for unique at-risk populations should be the chief responsibility of teams providing subspecialty care, [such as for] transplant patients, people with chronic kidney disease, cancer patients, and people with other chronic illnesses.  This will allow primary care clinicians to tackle their many complex jobs.”
 

Possible solutions for those with low antibody responses

Dr. Larsen said that those with ongoing low antibody responses might still have other immune responses, such as a T-cell response. Such patients also could consider changing their vaccine type, he said.

“At the more significant intervention level, there may be circumstances where one could change the immunosuppressive drugs in a controlled way that might allow a better response,” suggested Dr. Larsen. “That’s obviously going to be something that requires a lot more thought and careful study.”

Dr. Werbel said that other options might need to be considered for those having no response following a third dose. One possibility is trying a vaccine with an adjuvant, such as the Novavax version, which might be more widely available soon.

“If you’re given a third dose of a very immunogenic vaccine – something that should work – and you just have no antibody development, it seems relatively unlikely that doing the same thing again is going to help you from that perspective, and for all we know might expose you to more risk,” Dr. Werbel noted.
 

Participant details

None of the 30 patients were thought to have ever had COVID-19. On average, patients had received their transplant 4.5 years before their original vaccination. In 25 patients, maintenance immunosuppression included tacrolimus or cyclosporine along with mycophenolate. Corticosteroids were also used for 24 patients, sirolimus was used for one patient, and belatacept was used for another patient.

Fifty-seven percent of patients had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine originally, and 43% the Moderna vaccine. Most of the patients were kidney recipients, with two heart, three liver, one lung, one pancreas and one kidney-pancreas.

Dr. Werbel, Dr. Wender, and Dr. Larsen reported no relevant disclosures.

A third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine can boost antibody levels in people who previously received a solid organ transplant and had an unsatisfactory response to their first two mRNA shots, according to data from a newly published 30-patient case series.

All of those with low titers before the third dose had high titers after receiving the additional shot, but only about 33% of those with negative initial responses had detectable antibodies after the third dose, according to the paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who keep a COVID-19 vaccine registry, perform antibody tests on all registry subjects and inform them of their results. Registry participants were asked to inform the research team if they received a third dose, and, the research team tracked the immune responses of those who did.

The participants in this case series had low antibody levels and received a third dose of the vaccine on their own between March 20 and May 10 of 2021.
 

Third dose results

In this cases series – thought to be the first to look at third vaccine shots in this type of patient group – all six of those who had low antibody titers before the third dose had high-positive titers after the third dose.

Of the 24 individuals who had negative antibody titers before the third dose, just 6 had high titers after the third dose.

Two of the participants had low-positive titers, and 16 were negative.

“Several of those boosted very nicely into ranges seen, using these assays, in healthy persons,” said William Werbel, MD, a fellow in infectious disease at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who helped lead the study. Those with negative levels, even if they responded, tended to have lower titers, he said.

“The benefits at least from an antibody perspective were not the same for everybody and so this is obviously something that needs to be considered when thinking about selecting patients” for a COVID-19 prevention strategy, he said.

Reactions to the vaccine were low to moderate, such as some arm pain and fatigue.

“Showing that something is safe in that special, vulnerable population is important,” Dr. Werbel said. “We’re all wanting to make sure that we’re doing no harm.”

Dr. Werbel noted that there was no pattern in the small series based on the organ transplanted or in the vaccines used. As their third shot, 15 of the patients received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine; 9 received Moderna; and 6 received Pfizer-BioNTech.
 

Welcome news, but larger studies needed

“To think that a third dose could confer protection for a significant number of people is of course extremely welcome news,” said Christian Larsen, MD, DPhil, professor of surgery in the transplantation division at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the easiest conceivable next intervention.”

He added, “We just want studies to confirm that – larger studies.”

Dr. Werbel stressed the importance of looking at third doses in these patients in a more controlled fashion in a randomized trial, to more carefully monitor safety and how patients fare when starting with one type of vaccine and switching to another, for example.

Richard Wender, MD, chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are a reminder that there is still a lot that is unknown about COVID-19 and vaccination.

“We still don’t know who will or will not benefit from a third dose,” he said. “And our knowledge is evolving.  For example, a recent study suggested that people with previous infection and who are vaccinated may have better and longer protection than people with vaccination alone. We’re still learning.”

He added that specialists, not primary care clinicians, should be relied upon to respond to this emerging vaccination data. Primary care doctors are very busy in other ways – such as in getting children caught up on vaccinations and helping adults return to managing their chronic diseases, Dr. Wender noted.

“Their focus needs to be on helping to overcome hesitancy, mistrust, lack of information, or antivaccination sentiment to help more people feel comfortable being vaccinated – this is a lot of work and needs constant focus. In short, primary care clinicians need to focus chiefly on the unvaccinated,” he said.

“Monitoring immunization recommendations for unique at-risk populations should be the chief responsibility of teams providing subspecialty care, [such as for] transplant patients, people with chronic kidney disease, cancer patients, and people with other chronic illnesses.  This will allow primary care clinicians to tackle their many complex jobs.”
 

Possible solutions for those with low antibody responses

Dr. Larsen said that those with ongoing low antibody responses might still have other immune responses, such as a T-cell response. Such patients also could consider changing their vaccine type, he said.

“At the more significant intervention level, there may be circumstances where one could change the immunosuppressive drugs in a controlled way that might allow a better response,” suggested Dr. Larsen. “That’s obviously going to be something that requires a lot more thought and careful study.”

Dr. Werbel said that other options might need to be considered for those having no response following a third dose. One possibility is trying a vaccine with an adjuvant, such as the Novavax version, which might be more widely available soon.

“If you’re given a third dose of a very immunogenic vaccine – something that should work – and you just have no antibody development, it seems relatively unlikely that doing the same thing again is going to help you from that perspective, and for all we know might expose you to more risk,” Dr. Werbel noted.
 

Participant details

None of the 30 patients were thought to have ever had COVID-19. On average, patients had received their transplant 4.5 years before their original vaccination. In 25 patients, maintenance immunosuppression included tacrolimus or cyclosporine along with mycophenolate. Corticosteroids were also used for 24 patients, sirolimus was used for one patient, and belatacept was used for another patient.

Fifty-seven percent of patients had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine originally, and 43% the Moderna vaccine. Most of the patients were kidney recipients, with two heart, three liver, one lung, one pancreas and one kidney-pancreas.

Dr. Werbel, Dr. Wender, and Dr. Larsen reported no relevant disclosures.

The gender gap in gastroenterology persists – currently, women constitute 39% of fellows, but only 22% of senior AGA members and less than 18% of all practicing gastroenterologists – and it has gained even greater significance within the “current historical moment” of the COVID pandemic and growing cognizance of systemic sexism and racism, according to experts.

During the pandemic, women have been more likely to stay home to care for ill family members and children affected by school closures, which increases their already disproportionate share of unpaid work, wrote Jessica Bernica, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston with her associates in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. They noted that, according to one study, this “holds true for female physicians, who despite their more privileged positions, also experience higher demands at home, impacting their ability to contribute to teaching, service, and research.”

At the same time, the pandemic has brought into focus which jobs are “truly essential” – and that they are “overwhelmingly [held] by women and people of color, who are often underpaid and undervalued,” the experts wrote. The growing focus on systemic racism has also increased awareness of the chronic gender discrimination faced by female minorities, as well as by women in general, they added. In the field of gastroenterology, inherent gender bias – both systemic and self-directed – can bar women from advancing beginning as early as medical school.

To help address these issues, the experts outlined key opportunities for change as women navigate professional “forks in the road” throughout their careers.
 

Throughout their careers

During medical school and residency, women can specifically request gastroenterology rotations (“ideally with both inpatient and outpatient exposure”), attend society conferences, participate in research themselves, and join a research track or serve as chief medical resident. When applying for gastroenterology fellowships, they can prioritize programs with female faculty, which were recently found to be more likely to hire female fellows.

During fellowship, women can avail themselves of female mentors, who can help them strategize about ways to address gender bias, connect with GI groups and societies, and learn endoscopy techniques, including “unique approaches ... [that] overcome the challenges of standard scope sizes and accessibility.” At the institutional level, opportunities to affect positive changes for women trainees include “formal education on the benefits of hands-on learning and encouraging explicit and open communication between parties regarding invitation to, comfort with, and type of physical contact prior to a case.”

After fellowship, early-career gastroenterologists should scrutinize contracts for details on pay and research support, and they should ideally join a practice that either already has many women physicians on staff, or that ensures salary transparency and has “parental leave policies that are compatible with [applicants’] personal and professional goals.” But the experts advocated caution about part-time positions, which may purport to offer more flexibility but turn into full-time work for part-time pay and can preclude participation in practice management.

The experts recommended midcareer female gastroenterologists call out their own achievements rather than waiting for recognition, “actively seek promotion and tenure,” negotiate their salaries (as men tend to do routinely), and think twice before accepting professional roles that are uncompensated or do not clearly promote career advancement.

Senior gastroenterologists have unique opportunities to spearhead changes in institutional policies and practices, according to the experts. Specific examples include “explicitly stating [in job listings] that salary is negotiable, creating transparent written compensation plans, and conducting audits of job offers” to help mitigate any inequities in pay or hiring practices. In addition, senior women gastroenterologists can mentor individual women in the field, implement formal trainings on implicit bias, ensure that their practice or department tracks the gender of gastroenterologists who join, leave, or are promoted.

The experts did not report receiving funding for the work. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

The gender gap in gastroenterology persists – currently, women constitute 39% of fellows, but only 22% of senior AGA members and less than 18% of all practicing gastroenterologists – and it has gained even greater significance within the “current historical moment” of the COVID pandemic and growing cognizance of systemic sexism and racism, according to experts.

During the pandemic, women have been more likely to stay home to care for ill family members and children affected by school closures, which increases their already disproportionate share of unpaid work, wrote Jessica Bernica, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston with her associates in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. They noted that, according to one study, this “holds true for female physicians, who despite their more privileged positions, also experience higher demands at home, impacting their ability to contribute to teaching, service, and research.”

At the same time, the pandemic has brought into focus which jobs are “truly essential” – and that they are “overwhelmingly [held] by women and people of color, who are often underpaid and undervalued,” the experts wrote. The growing focus on systemic racism has also increased awareness of the chronic gender discrimination faced by female minorities, as well as by women in general, they added. In the field of gastroenterology, inherent gender bias – both systemic and self-directed – can bar women from advancing beginning as early as medical school.

To help address these issues, the experts outlined key opportunities for change as women navigate professional “forks in the road” throughout their careers.
 

Throughout their careers

During medical school and residency, women can specifically request gastroenterology rotations (“ideally with both inpatient and outpatient exposure”), attend society conferences, participate in research themselves, and join a research track or serve as chief medical resident. When applying for gastroenterology fellowships, they can prioritize programs with female faculty, which were recently found to be more likely to hire female fellows.

During fellowship, women can avail themselves of female mentors, who can help them strategize about ways to address gender bias, connect with GI groups and societies, and learn endoscopy techniques, including “unique approaches ... [that] overcome the challenges of standard scope sizes and accessibility.” At the institutional level, opportunities to affect positive changes for women trainees include “formal education on the benefits of hands-on learning and encouraging explicit and open communication between parties regarding invitation to, comfort with, and type of physical contact prior to a case.”

After fellowship, early-career gastroenterologists should scrutinize contracts for details on pay and research support, and they should ideally join a practice that either already has many women physicians on staff, or that ensures salary transparency and has “parental leave policies that are compatible with [applicants’] personal and professional goals.” But the experts advocated caution about part-time positions, which may purport to offer more flexibility but turn into full-time work for part-time pay and can preclude participation in practice management.

The experts recommended midcareer female gastroenterologists call out their own achievements rather than waiting for recognition, “actively seek promotion and tenure,” negotiate their salaries (as men tend to do routinely), and think twice before accepting professional roles that are uncompensated or do not clearly promote career advancement.

Senior gastroenterologists have unique opportunities to spearhead changes in institutional policies and practices, according to the experts. Specific examples include “explicitly stating [in job listings] that salary is negotiable, creating transparent written compensation plans, and conducting audits of job offers” to help mitigate any inequities in pay or hiring practices. In addition, senior women gastroenterologists can mentor individual women in the field, implement formal trainings on implicit bias, ensure that their practice or department tracks the gender of gastroenterologists who join, leave, or are promoted.

The experts did not report receiving funding for the work. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

The gender gap in gastroenterology persists – currently, women constitute 39% of fellows, but only 22% of senior AGA members and less than 18% of all practicing gastroenterologists – and it has gained even greater significance within the “current historical moment” of the COVID pandemic and growing cognizance of systemic sexism and racism, according to experts.

During the pandemic, women have been more likely to stay home to care for ill family members and children affected by school closures, which increases their already disproportionate share of unpaid work, wrote Jessica Bernica, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston with her associates in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. They noted that, according to one study, this “holds true for female physicians, who despite their more privileged positions, also experience higher demands at home, impacting their ability to contribute to teaching, service, and research.”

At the same time, the pandemic has brought into focus which jobs are “truly essential” – and that they are “overwhelmingly [held] by women and people of color, who are often underpaid and undervalued,” the experts wrote. The growing focus on systemic racism has also increased awareness of the chronic gender discrimination faced by female minorities, as well as by women in general, they added. In the field of gastroenterology, inherent gender bias – both systemic and self-directed – can bar women from advancing beginning as early as medical school.

To help address these issues, the experts outlined key opportunities for change as women navigate professional “forks in the road” throughout their careers.
 

Throughout their careers

During medical school and residency, women can specifically request gastroenterology rotations (“ideally with both inpatient and outpatient exposure”), attend society conferences, participate in research themselves, and join a research track or serve as chief medical resident. When applying for gastroenterology fellowships, they can prioritize programs with female faculty, which were recently found to be more likely to hire female fellows.

During fellowship, women can avail themselves of female mentors, who can help them strategize about ways to address gender bias, connect with GI groups and societies, and learn endoscopy techniques, including “unique approaches ... [that] overcome the challenges of standard scope sizes and accessibility.” At the institutional level, opportunities to affect positive changes for women trainees include “formal education on the benefits of hands-on learning and encouraging explicit and open communication between parties regarding invitation to, comfort with, and type of physical contact prior to a case.”

After fellowship, early-career gastroenterologists should scrutinize contracts for details on pay and research support, and they should ideally join a practice that either already has many women physicians on staff, or that ensures salary transparency and has “parental leave policies that are compatible with [applicants’] personal and professional goals.” But the experts advocated caution about part-time positions, which may purport to offer more flexibility but turn into full-time work for part-time pay and can preclude participation in practice management.

The experts recommended midcareer female gastroenterologists call out their own achievements rather than waiting for recognition, “actively seek promotion and tenure,” negotiate their salaries (as men tend to do routinely), and think twice before accepting professional roles that are uncompensated or do not clearly promote career advancement.

Senior gastroenterologists have unique opportunities to spearhead changes in institutional policies and practices, according to the experts. Specific examples include “explicitly stating [in job listings] that salary is negotiable, creating transparent written compensation plans, and conducting audits of job offers” to help mitigate any inequities in pay or hiring practices. In addition, senior women gastroenterologists can mentor individual women in the field, implement formal trainings on implicit bias, ensure that their practice or department tracks the gender of gastroenterologists who join, leave, or are promoted.

The experts did not report receiving funding for the work. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

Patients who underwent metabolic and bariatric surgery had fewer than half the number of hospitalizations for both acute and chronic episodes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a retrospective analysis of more than 2 million Americans collected in a national database.

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for several variables patients without a history of bariatric surgery had three- to fivefold more hospitalizations for acute events involving HFpEF, and more than double the rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events, David R. Funes, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

While this analysis has the limitations of being retrospective, observational, and entirely reliant on procedure codes to define medical histories and outcomes, it had the advantage of using a large database designed to represent the U.S. adult population, said Dr. Funes, a bariatric surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic in Weston, Fla.
 

HFpEF effects could ‘extend’ surgery’s use

The report “adds an important article to the literature where there is a true void in trying to discern the effect of bariatric surgery on HFpEF,” commented Tammy L. Kindel, MD, PhD, director of the bariatric surgery program at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and designated discussant for the report. “Minimal studies [up to now] demonstrate that weight loss in any form can modify diastolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF. Studies that investigate the impact of bariatric surgery on clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF are probably the most important for extending use of metabolic surgery,” Dr. Kindel said.

She added that “one of the most difficult parts of studying HFpEF” is making a firm diagnosis that often involves excluding other potential causes. She also questioned Dr. Funes about his confidence that his analysis correctly identified patients only with HFpEF. Dr. Funes replied that the diagnostic codes his team used allowed for a clear distinction between patients identified with HFpEF and those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but he also admitted that his study’s complete reliance on these codes introduced a limitation to the analysis.
 

Including patients with diastolic dysfunction as well as HFpEF

The study used data collected during 2010-2015 by the National Inpatient Sample, run by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services in a case-control analysis that included 296,041 patients who had undergone some form of bariatric surgery and 2,004,804 people with no history of bariatric surgery selected as controls on the basis of their obesity.

The absolute numbers showed that, during the observation period, the incidence of acute HFpEF hospitalizations was 0.19% among those with prior bariatric surgery and 0.86% among those with no surgery, and the incidence of chronic heart failure hospitalizations was 0.01% among people with prior bariatric surgery and 0.05% among those without prior surgery. Dr. Funes said. He noted that, during the period studied patients, with HFpEF were usually identified as having diastolic heart failure, an older name for the same disease.

In multivariate analyses that adjusted for age, sex, race, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, and coronary artery disease, people without prior bariatric surgery and with hypertension had a 2.8-fold increased rate of acute hospitalizations for HFpEF, while those without hypertension or prior bariatric surgery had a 5.2-fold increased rate. In addition, control patients, regardless of hypertension status, had a 2.9-fold increased rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events. All these differences were statistically significant.

Dr. Funes also reported results from additional analyses that focused on a roughly 68,000-patient subgroup of those included in the study who had a history of coronary artery disease, including about 62,000 with no prior bariatric surgery and nearly 6,000 people with prior bariatric surgery. In a multivariate analysis of this subgroup, people without prior bariatric surgery had a 2.65-fold increased rate of hospitalization for a HFpEF event (either acute or chronic), compared with those who had undergone bariatric surgery.

Dr. Funes and associates and Dr. Kindel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients who underwent metabolic and bariatric surgery had fewer than half the number of hospitalizations for both acute and chronic episodes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a retrospective analysis of more than 2 million Americans collected in a national database.

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for several variables patients without a history of bariatric surgery had three- to fivefold more hospitalizations for acute events involving HFpEF, and more than double the rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events, David R. Funes, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

While this analysis has the limitations of being retrospective, observational, and entirely reliant on procedure codes to define medical histories and outcomes, it had the advantage of using a large database designed to represent the U.S. adult population, said Dr. Funes, a bariatric surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic in Weston, Fla.
 

HFpEF effects could ‘extend’ surgery’s use

The report “adds an important article to the literature where there is a true void in trying to discern the effect of bariatric surgery on HFpEF,” commented Tammy L. Kindel, MD, PhD, director of the bariatric surgery program at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and designated discussant for the report. “Minimal studies [up to now] demonstrate that weight loss in any form can modify diastolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF. Studies that investigate the impact of bariatric surgery on clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF are probably the most important for extending use of metabolic surgery,” Dr. Kindel said.

She added that “one of the most difficult parts of studying HFpEF” is making a firm diagnosis that often involves excluding other potential causes. She also questioned Dr. Funes about his confidence that his analysis correctly identified patients only with HFpEF. Dr. Funes replied that the diagnostic codes his team used allowed for a clear distinction between patients identified with HFpEF and those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but he also admitted that his study’s complete reliance on these codes introduced a limitation to the analysis.
 

Including patients with diastolic dysfunction as well as HFpEF

The study used data collected during 2010-2015 by the National Inpatient Sample, run by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services in a case-control analysis that included 296,041 patients who had undergone some form of bariatric surgery and 2,004,804 people with no history of bariatric surgery selected as controls on the basis of their obesity.

The absolute numbers showed that, during the observation period, the incidence of acute HFpEF hospitalizations was 0.19% among those with prior bariatric surgery and 0.86% among those with no surgery, and the incidence of chronic heart failure hospitalizations was 0.01% among people with prior bariatric surgery and 0.05% among those without prior surgery. Dr. Funes said. He noted that, during the period studied patients, with HFpEF were usually identified as having diastolic heart failure, an older name for the same disease.

In multivariate analyses that adjusted for age, sex, race, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, and coronary artery disease, people without prior bariatric surgery and with hypertension had a 2.8-fold increased rate of acute hospitalizations for HFpEF, while those without hypertension or prior bariatric surgery had a 5.2-fold increased rate. In addition, control patients, regardless of hypertension status, had a 2.9-fold increased rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events. All these differences were statistically significant.

Dr. Funes also reported results from additional analyses that focused on a roughly 68,000-patient subgroup of those included in the study who had a history of coronary artery disease, including about 62,000 with no prior bariatric surgery and nearly 6,000 people with prior bariatric surgery. In a multivariate analysis of this subgroup, people without prior bariatric surgery had a 2.65-fold increased rate of hospitalization for a HFpEF event (either acute or chronic), compared with those who had undergone bariatric surgery.

Dr. Funes and associates and Dr. Kindel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients who underwent metabolic and bariatric surgery had fewer than half the number of hospitalizations for both acute and chronic episodes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a retrospective analysis of more than 2 million Americans collected in a national database.

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for several variables patients without a history of bariatric surgery had three- to fivefold more hospitalizations for acute events involving HFpEF, and more than double the rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events, David R. Funes, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

While this analysis has the limitations of being retrospective, observational, and entirely reliant on procedure codes to define medical histories and outcomes, it had the advantage of using a large database designed to represent the U.S. adult population, said Dr. Funes, a bariatric surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic in Weston, Fla.
 

HFpEF effects could ‘extend’ surgery’s use

The report “adds an important article to the literature where there is a true void in trying to discern the effect of bariatric surgery on HFpEF,” commented Tammy L. Kindel, MD, PhD, director of the bariatric surgery program at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and designated discussant for the report. “Minimal studies [up to now] demonstrate that weight loss in any form can modify diastolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF. Studies that investigate the impact of bariatric surgery on clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF are probably the most important for extending use of metabolic surgery,” Dr. Kindel said.

She added that “one of the most difficult parts of studying HFpEF” is making a firm diagnosis that often involves excluding other potential causes. She also questioned Dr. Funes about his confidence that his analysis correctly identified patients only with HFpEF. Dr. Funes replied that the diagnostic codes his team used allowed for a clear distinction between patients identified with HFpEF and those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but he also admitted that his study’s complete reliance on these codes introduced a limitation to the analysis.
 

Including patients with diastolic dysfunction as well as HFpEF

The study used data collected during 2010-2015 by the National Inpatient Sample, run by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services in a case-control analysis that included 296,041 patients who had undergone some form of bariatric surgery and 2,004,804 people with no history of bariatric surgery selected as controls on the basis of their obesity.

The absolute numbers showed that, during the observation period, the incidence of acute HFpEF hospitalizations was 0.19% among those with prior bariatric surgery and 0.86% among those with no surgery, and the incidence of chronic heart failure hospitalizations was 0.01% among people with prior bariatric surgery and 0.05% among those without prior surgery. Dr. Funes said. He noted that, during the period studied patients, with HFpEF were usually identified as having diastolic heart failure, an older name for the same disease.

In multivariate analyses that adjusted for age, sex, race, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, and coronary artery disease, people without prior bariatric surgery and with hypertension had a 2.8-fold increased rate of acute hospitalizations for HFpEF, while those without hypertension or prior bariatric surgery had a 5.2-fold increased rate. In addition, control patients, regardless of hypertension status, had a 2.9-fold increased rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events. All these differences were statistically significant.

Dr. Funes also reported results from additional analyses that focused on a roughly 68,000-patient subgroup of those included in the study who had a history of coronary artery disease, including about 62,000 with no prior bariatric surgery and nearly 6,000 people with prior bariatric surgery. In a multivariate analysis of this subgroup, people without prior bariatric surgery had a 2.65-fold increased rate of hospitalization for a HFpEF event (either acute or chronic), compared with those who had undergone bariatric surgery.

Dr. Funes and associates and Dr. Kindel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]