This year saw an unprecedented rise in medical consults over virtual platforms, as the COVID-19 pandemic raged on in the United States and worldwide.

Statistics from major health care groups and payers underscore this effect. Polling 1,004 U.S. adults this fall, the American Psychiatric Association found that 31% had used telehealth services – with 72% reporting they had ventured into this mode of care over the last 6 months.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, was a major catalyst, waiving geographic and Medicare telehealth payment restrictions for mental health services during certain emergency periods. Medicare beneficiaries gained access to telehealth services – they could start seeing doctors via videoconferencing in their homes, regardless of location. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began paying doctors for telehealth services at the same rate as in-office visits for all diagnoses and issued a toolkit to promote adoption of telehealth coverage policies among state Medicaid agencies.

Most states responded, expanding telehealth in Medicaid programs and relaxing restrictions on provider licensing, online prescribing, and patient consent for telehealth, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported in May. Other federal agencies took actions during the public health emergency. The Drug Enforcement Administration allowed for the prescribing of controlled substances through telemedicine, and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’s Office for Civil Rights agreed not to impose penalties for noncompliance of HIPAA during video conferencing, provided that physicians were acting in the best interests of the patient.

“The benefits we’re seeing on both sides – for patients and for doctors – around convenience and access are wonderful,” Nina Vasan, MD, MBA, founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation and chair of APA’s Committee on Innovation, said in an interview. Before COVID began, only a handful of clinicians were seeing patients via televideo at Stanford, said Dr. Vasan. “Now, almost everyone is. The forced uptake and change of behavior was something we’ve needed for years, and now that it has happened, I don’t see it going away.”

This year saw an unprecedented rise in medical consults over virtual platforms, as the COVID-19 pandemic raged on in the United States and worldwide.

Statistics from major health care groups and payers underscore this effect. Polling 1,004 U.S. adults this fall, the American Psychiatric Association found that 31% had used telehealth services – with 72% reporting they had ventured into this mode of care over the last 6 months.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, was a major catalyst, waiving geographic and Medicare telehealth payment restrictions for mental health services during certain emergency periods. Medicare beneficiaries gained access to telehealth services – they could start seeing doctors via videoconferencing in their homes, regardless of location. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began paying doctors for telehealth services at the same rate as in-office visits for all diagnoses and issued a toolkit to promote adoption of telehealth coverage policies among state Medicaid agencies.

Most states responded, expanding telehealth in Medicaid programs and relaxing restrictions on provider licensing, online prescribing, and patient consent for telehealth, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported in May. Other federal agencies took actions during the public health emergency. The Drug Enforcement Administration allowed for the prescribing of controlled substances through telemedicine, and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’s Office for Civil Rights agreed not to impose penalties for noncompliance of HIPAA during video conferencing, provided that physicians were acting in the best interests of the patient.

“The benefits we’re seeing on both sides – for patients and for doctors – around convenience and access are wonderful,” Nina Vasan, MD, MBA, founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation and chair of APA’s Committee on Innovation, said in an interview. Before COVID began, only a handful of clinicians were seeing patients via televideo at Stanford, said Dr. Vasan. “Now, almost everyone is. The forced uptake and change of behavior was something we’ve needed for years, and now that it has happened, I don’t see it going away.”

This year saw an unprecedented rise in medical consults over virtual platforms, as the COVID-19 pandemic raged on in the United States and worldwide.

Statistics from major health care groups and payers underscore this effect. Polling 1,004 U.S. adults this fall, the American Psychiatric Association found that 31% had used telehealth services – with 72% reporting they had ventured into this mode of care over the last 6 months.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, was a major catalyst, waiving geographic and Medicare telehealth payment restrictions for mental health services during certain emergency periods. Medicare beneficiaries gained access to telehealth services – they could start seeing doctors via videoconferencing in their homes, regardless of location. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began paying doctors for telehealth services at the same rate as in-office visits for all diagnoses and issued a toolkit to promote adoption of telehealth coverage policies among state Medicaid agencies.

Most states responded, expanding telehealth in Medicaid programs and relaxing restrictions on provider licensing, online prescribing, and patient consent for telehealth, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported in May. Other federal agencies took actions during the public health emergency. The Drug Enforcement Administration allowed for the prescribing of controlled substances through telemedicine, and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’s Office for Civil Rights agreed not to impose penalties for noncompliance of HIPAA during video conferencing, provided that physicians were acting in the best interests of the patient.

“The benefits we’re seeing on both sides – for patients and for doctors – around convenience and access are wonderful,” Nina Vasan, MD, MBA, founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation and chair of APA’s Committee on Innovation, said in an interview. Before COVID began, only a handful of clinicians were seeing patients via televideo at Stanford, said Dr. Vasan. “Now, almost everyone is. The forced uptake and change of behavior was something we’ve needed for years, and now that it has happened, I don’t see it going away.”

Risk factors for keratinocyte carcinomas, primarily pigment traits and sun sensitivity, were associated with the risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in an analysis of 92,097 women in France.

The presence of “many or very many nevi [moles]” was particularly associated with the risk of CLL among individuals in the E3N cohort, according to a report published online in Cancer Medicine. E3N is a prospective cohort of French women aged 40-65 years at inclusion in 1990. Researchers collected cancer data at baseline and every 2-3 years.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for associations between patients pigmentary traits and sun exposure and their risk for CLL/NHL were estimated using Cox models, according to study author Louis-Marie Garcin, MD, of the Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, and colleagues.
 

Common etiology?

Among the 92,097 women included in the study, 622 incident cases of CLL/NHL were observed over a median of 24-years’ follow-up.

The presence of nevi was associated with CLL/NHL risk. The HR for “many or very many nevi” relative to “no nevi” was 1.56. The association with number of nevi was strongest for the risk of CLL, with an HR for “many or very many nevi” of 3.00 vs. 1.32 for NHL. In addition, the researchers found that women whose skin was highly sensitive to sunburn also had a higher risk of CLL (HR, 1.96), while no increased risk of NHL was observed. All HR values were within their respective 95% confidence intervals.

Relevant characteristics that were found to not be associated with added CLL/NHL risk were skin or hair color, number of freckles, and average daily UV dose during spring and summer in the location of residence at birth or at inclusion.

These observations suggest that CLL in particular may share some constitutional risk factors with keratinocyte cancers, according to the researchers.

“We report an association between nevi frequency and CLL/NHL risk, suggesting a partly common genetic etiology of these tumors. Future research should investigate common pathophysiological pathways that could promote the development of both skin carcinoma and CLL/NHL,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by the French government. The authors stated that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Garcin L-M et al. Cancer Med. 2020. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3586.

Risk factors for keratinocyte carcinomas, primarily pigment traits and sun sensitivity, were associated with the risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in an analysis of 92,097 women in France.

The presence of “many or very many nevi [moles]” was particularly associated with the risk of CLL among individuals in the E3N cohort, according to a report published online in Cancer Medicine. E3N is a prospective cohort of French women aged 40-65 years at inclusion in 1990. Researchers collected cancer data at baseline and every 2-3 years.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for associations between patients pigmentary traits and sun exposure and their risk for CLL/NHL were estimated using Cox models, according to study author Louis-Marie Garcin, MD, of the Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, and colleagues.
 

Common etiology?

Among the 92,097 women included in the study, 622 incident cases of CLL/NHL were observed over a median of 24-years’ follow-up.

The presence of nevi was associated with CLL/NHL risk. The HR for “many or very many nevi” relative to “no nevi” was 1.56. The association with number of nevi was strongest for the risk of CLL, with an HR for “many or very many nevi” of 3.00 vs. 1.32 for NHL. In addition, the researchers found that women whose skin was highly sensitive to sunburn also had a higher risk of CLL (HR, 1.96), while no increased risk of NHL was observed. All HR values were within their respective 95% confidence intervals.

Relevant characteristics that were found to not be associated with added CLL/NHL risk were skin or hair color, number of freckles, and average daily UV dose during spring and summer in the location of residence at birth or at inclusion.

These observations suggest that CLL in particular may share some constitutional risk factors with keratinocyte cancers, according to the researchers.

“We report an association between nevi frequency and CLL/NHL risk, suggesting a partly common genetic etiology of these tumors. Future research should investigate common pathophysiological pathways that could promote the development of both skin carcinoma and CLL/NHL,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by the French government. The authors stated that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Garcin L-M et al. Cancer Med. 2020. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3586.

Risk factors for keratinocyte carcinomas, primarily pigment traits and sun sensitivity, were associated with the risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in an analysis of 92,097 women in France.

The presence of “many or very many nevi [moles]” was particularly associated with the risk of CLL among individuals in the E3N cohort, according to a report published online in Cancer Medicine. E3N is a prospective cohort of French women aged 40-65 years at inclusion in 1990. Researchers collected cancer data at baseline and every 2-3 years.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for associations between patients pigmentary traits and sun exposure and their risk for CLL/NHL were estimated using Cox models, according to study author Louis-Marie Garcin, MD, of the Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, and colleagues.
 

Common etiology?

Among the 92,097 women included in the study, 622 incident cases of CLL/NHL were observed over a median of 24-years’ follow-up.

The presence of nevi was associated with CLL/NHL risk. The HR for “many or very many nevi” relative to “no nevi” was 1.56. The association with number of nevi was strongest for the risk of CLL, with an HR for “many or very many nevi” of 3.00 vs. 1.32 for NHL. In addition, the researchers found that women whose skin was highly sensitive to sunburn also had a higher risk of CLL (HR, 1.96), while no increased risk of NHL was observed. All HR values were within their respective 95% confidence intervals.

Relevant characteristics that were found to not be associated with added CLL/NHL risk were skin or hair color, number of freckles, and average daily UV dose during spring and summer in the location of residence at birth or at inclusion.

These observations suggest that CLL in particular may share some constitutional risk factors with keratinocyte cancers, according to the researchers.

“We report an association between nevi frequency and CLL/NHL risk, suggesting a partly common genetic etiology of these tumors. Future research should investigate common pathophysiological pathways that could promote the development of both skin carcinoma and CLL/NHL,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by the French government. The authors stated that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Garcin L-M et al. Cancer Med. 2020. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3586.

The American Medical Association House of Delegates has adopted a policy to educate physicians on how to speak with patients about COVID-19 vaccination to counteract widespread misinformation about the vaccine development process.

Other highlights of the AMA’s recent special meeting include a new policy on the ethics of physicians getting immunized against COVID-19 and a far-reaching statement about racism.

Under the organization’s new vaccination education policy, the AMA will provide physicians with “culturally appropriate patient education materials,” according to a news release.

This campaign will be conducted “bearing in mind the historical context of ‘experimentation’ with vaccines and other medication in communities of color,” the AMA said, apparently alluding to the infamous Tuskegee study of syphilis in Black men.

Educating the public about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine programs is an “urgent priority,” the AMA said. This is especially true among populations that have been disproportionately affected by the disease. Black and Latino people are being hospitalized for COVID-19 at far higher rates than White Americans.

“Under the new policy, the AMA will help address patient concerns, dispel misinformation, and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccination,” the release states. The AMA also plans to build a coalition of health care and public health organizations to develop and implement a joint public education program.

Polls have indicated that many people will not get vaccinated when supplies of the new COVID-19 vaccines are available, although public support is rising. A recent Gallup poll found that 58% of surveyed adults were willing to be inoculated, up from 50% in September.

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in September found that a majority of Americans were skeptical of a rushed vaccine, because they were concerned that the Trump administration was pressuring the Food and Drug Administration to approve a vaccine before the election.

“Given the unprecedented situation with COVID-19 and with vaccine development moving at a rapid pace, many of our patients and the public have questions and concerns,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, in the release. “It is essential that we speak together as a strong, unified voice across health care and public health, inclusive of organizations respected in communities of color; to use scientific, fact-based evidence to help allay public concerns; and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccine candidates that are determined to be safe and effective.”
 

Physician, immunize thyself

The AMA also adopted a new ethics policy about physician immunization. On Monday, the AMA House of Delegates stated that physicians who are not immunized from a vaccine-preventable disease have an ethical responsibility to take appropriate actions to protect patients and colleagues.

The AMA code of ethics has long maintained that physicians have a strong ethical duty to accept immunizations when a safe, effective vaccine is available. However, the organization said in a news release, “it is not ethically problematic to exempt individuals when a specific vaccine poses a risk due to underlying medical conditions.”

Ethical concerns arise when physicians are allowed to decline vaccinations for nonmedical reasons, according to a report presented to the House of Delegates by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs.

According to the newly amended AMA ethical guidance, “physicians who are not or cannot be immunized have a responsibility to voluntarily take appropriate actions to protect patients, fellow health care workers and others.” This includes refraining from direct patient contact.

The delegates also approved a guidance asserting that physician practices and health care institutions are responsible for developing policies and procedures for responding to pandemics and epidemics. These policies and procedures should outline appropriate protective equipment allocation, staff immunization programs, and infection control practices.
 

Combating systemic racism

In an effort to reduce racial disparities in healthcare, the AMA House of Delegates adopted new policies recognizing race as a social construct, rather than a biological construct.

“The policies aim to advance data-driven, antiracist concepts challenging the current clinical application of race and its effects on vulnerable patient populations,” an AMA statement said.

The new AMA policies “reflect an understanding of race as a socially constructed category different from ethnicity, genetic ancestry, or biology, and aim to end the misinterpretation of race as a biological category defined by genetic traits or biological differences,” the AMA said.

According to the AMA, the practice of accepting race as a biological construct “exacerbates health disparities and results in detrimental health outcomes for marginalized and minoritized communities.”

Specifically, the AMA said it supports ending the practice of using race as a proxy for biology in medical education, research, and clinical practice. It also encourages medical education programs to recognize the harmful effects of this approach. It recommends that clinicians and researchers focus on genetics and biology, the experience of racism, and social determinants of health when describing risk factors for disease.

“The AMA is dedicated to dismantling racist and discriminatory policies and practices across all of health care, and that includes the way we define race in medicine,” said AMA board member Michael Suk, MD, in its statement. “We believe it is not sufficient for medicine to be nonracist, which is why the AMA is committed to pushing for a shift in thinking from race as a biological risk factor to a deeper understanding of racism as a determinant of health.”

The AMA also plans to partner with physician organizations and other stakeholders “to identify any problematic aspects of medical education that may perpetuate institutional and structural racism.” For example, the AMA will work with other organizations to improve clinical algorithms that incorrectly adjust for race and lead to less-than-optimal care for minority patients.

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

The American Medical Association House of Delegates has adopted a policy to educate physicians on how to speak with patients about COVID-19 vaccination to counteract widespread misinformation about the vaccine development process.

Other highlights of the AMA’s recent special meeting include a new policy on the ethics of physicians getting immunized against COVID-19 and a far-reaching statement about racism.

Under the organization’s new vaccination education policy, the AMA will provide physicians with “culturally appropriate patient education materials,” according to a news release.

This campaign will be conducted “bearing in mind the historical context of ‘experimentation’ with vaccines and other medication in communities of color,” the AMA said, apparently alluding to the infamous Tuskegee study of syphilis in Black men.

Educating the public about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine programs is an “urgent priority,” the AMA said. This is especially true among populations that have been disproportionately affected by the disease. Black and Latino people are being hospitalized for COVID-19 at far higher rates than White Americans.

“Under the new policy, the AMA will help address patient concerns, dispel misinformation, and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccination,” the release states. The AMA also plans to build a coalition of health care and public health organizations to develop and implement a joint public education program.

Polls have indicated that many people will not get vaccinated when supplies of the new COVID-19 vaccines are available, although public support is rising. A recent Gallup poll found that 58% of surveyed adults were willing to be inoculated, up from 50% in September.

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in September found that a majority of Americans were skeptical of a rushed vaccine, because they were concerned that the Trump administration was pressuring the Food and Drug Administration to approve a vaccine before the election.

“Given the unprecedented situation with COVID-19 and with vaccine development moving at a rapid pace, many of our patients and the public have questions and concerns,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, in the release. “It is essential that we speak together as a strong, unified voice across health care and public health, inclusive of organizations respected in communities of color; to use scientific, fact-based evidence to help allay public concerns; and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccine candidates that are determined to be safe and effective.”
 

Physician, immunize thyself

The AMA also adopted a new ethics policy about physician immunization. On Monday, the AMA House of Delegates stated that physicians who are not immunized from a vaccine-preventable disease have an ethical responsibility to take appropriate actions to protect patients and colleagues.

The AMA code of ethics has long maintained that physicians have a strong ethical duty to accept immunizations when a safe, effective vaccine is available. However, the organization said in a news release, “it is not ethically problematic to exempt individuals when a specific vaccine poses a risk due to underlying medical conditions.”

Ethical concerns arise when physicians are allowed to decline vaccinations for nonmedical reasons, according to a report presented to the House of Delegates by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs.

According to the newly amended AMA ethical guidance, “physicians who are not or cannot be immunized have a responsibility to voluntarily take appropriate actions to protect patients, fellow health care workers and others.” This includes refraining from direct patient contact.

The delegates also approved a guidance asserting that physician practices and health care institutions are responsible for developing policies and procedures for responding to pandemics and epidemics. These policies and procedures should outline appropriate protective equipment allocation, staff immunization programs, and infection control practices.
 

Combating systemic racism

In an effort to reduce racial disparities in healthcare, the AMA House of Delegates adopted new policies recognizing race as a social construct, rather than a biological construct.

“The policies aim to advance data-driven, antiracist concepts challenging the current clinical application of race and its effects on vulnerable patient populations,” an AMA statement said.

The new AMA policies “reflect an understanding of race as a socially constructed category different from ethnicity, genetic ancestry, or biology, and aim to end the misinterpretation of race as a biological category defined by genetic traits or biological differences,” the AMA said.

According to the AMA, the practice of accepting race as a biological construct “exacerbates health disparities and results in detrimental health outcomes for marginalized and minoritized communities.”

Specifically, the AMA said it supports ending the practice of using race as a proxy for biology in medical education, research, and clinical practice. It also encourages medical education programs to recognize the harmful effects of this approach. It recommends that clinicians and researchers focus on genetics and biology, the experience of racism, and social determinants of health when describing risk factors for disease.

“The AMA is dedicated to dismantling racist and discriminatory policies and practices across all of health care, and that includes the way we define race in medicine,” said AMA board member Michael Suk, MD, in its statement. “We believe it is not sufficient for medicine to be nonracist, which is why the AMA is committed to pushing for a shift in thinking from race as a biological risk factor to a deeper understanding of racism as a determinant of health.”

The AMA also plans to partner with physician organizations and other stakeholders “to identify any problematic aspects of medical education that may perpetuate institutional and structural racism.” For example, the AMA will work with other organizations to improve clinical algorithms that incorrectly adjust for race and lead to less-than-optimal care for minority patients.

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

The American Medical Association House of Delegates has adopted a policy to educate physicians on how to speak with patients about COVID-19 vaccination to counteract widespread misinformation about the vaccine development process.

Other highlights of the AMA’s recent special meeting include a new policy on the ethics of physicians getting immunized against COVID-19 and a far-reaching statement about racism.

Under the organization’s new vaccination education policy, the AMA will provide physicians with “culturally appropriate patient education materials,” according to a news release.

This campaign will be conducted “bearing in mind the historical context of ‘experimentation’ with vaccines and other medication in communities of color,” the AMA said, apparently alluding to the infamous Tuskegee study of syphilis in Black men.

Educating the public about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine programs is an “urgent priority,” the AMA said. This is especially true among populations that have been disproportionately affected by the disease. Black and Latino people are being hospitalized for COVID-19 at far higher rates than White Americans.

“Under the new policy, the AMA will help address patient concerns, dispel misinformation, and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccination,” the release states. The AMA also plans to build a coalition of health care and public health organizations to develop and implement a joint public education program.

Polls have indicated that many people will not get vaccinated when supplies of the new COVID-19 vaccines are available, although public support is rising. A recent Gallup poll found that 58% of surveyed adults were willing to be inoculated, up from 50% in September.

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in September found that a majority of Americans were skeptical of a rushed vaccine, because they were concerned that the Trump administration was pressuring the Food and Drug Administration to approve a vaccine before the election.

“Given the unprecedented situation with COVID-19 and with vaccine development moving at a rapid pace, many of our patients and the public have questions and concerns,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, in the release. “It is essential that we speak together as a strong, unified voice across health care and public health, inclusive of organizations respected in communities of color; to use scientific, fact-based evidence to help allay public concerns; and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccine candidates that are determined to be safe and effective.”
 

Physician, immunize thyself

The AMA also adopted a new ethics policy about physician immunization. On Monday, the AMA House of Delegates stated that physicians who are not immunized from a vaccine-preventable disease have an ethical responsibility to take appropriate actions to protect patients and colleagues.

The AMA code of ethics has long maintained that physicians have a strong ethical duty to accept immunizations when a safe, effective vaccine is available. However, the organization said in a news release, “it is not ethically problematic to exempt individuals when a specific vaccine poses a risk due to underlying medical conditions.”

Ethical concerns arise when physicians are allowed to decline vaccinations for nonmedical reasons, according to a report presented to the House of Delegates by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs.

According to the newly amended AMA ethical guidance, “physicians who are not or cannot be immunized have a responsibility to voluntarily take appropriate actions to protect patients, fellow health care workers and others.” This includes refraining from direct patient contact.

The delegates also approved a guidance asserting that physician practices and health care institutions are responsible for developing policies and procedures for responding to pandemics and epidemics. These policies and procedures should outline appropriate protective equipment allocation, staff immunization programs, and infection control practices.
 

Combating systemic racism

In an effort to reduce racial disparities in healthcare, the AMA House of Delegates adopted new policies recognizing race as a social construct, rather than a biological construct.

“The policies aim to advance data-driven, antiracist concepts challenging the current clinical application of race and its effects on vulnerable patient populations,” an AMA statement said.

The new AMA policies “reflect an understanding of race as a socially constructed category different from ethnicity, genetic ancestry, or biology, and aim to end the misinterpretation of race as a biological category defined by genetic traits or biological differences,” the AMA said.

According to the AMA, the practice of accepting race as a biological construct “exacerbates health disparities and results in detrimental health outcomes for marginalized and minoritized communities.”

Specifically, the AMA said it supports ending the practice of using race as a proxy for biology in medical education, research, and clinical practice. It also encourages medical education programs to recognize the harmful effects of this approach. It recommends that clinicians and researchers focus on genetics and biology, the experience of racism, and social determinants of health when describing risk factors for disease.

“The AMA is dedicated to dismantling racist and discriminatory policies and practices across all of health care, and that includes the way we define race in medicine,” said AMA board member Michael Suk, MD, in its statement. “We believe it is not sufficient for medicine to be nonracist, which is why the AMA is committed to pushing for a shift in thinking from race as a biological risk factor to a deeper understanding of racism as a determinant of health.”

The AMA also plans to partner with physician organizations and other stakeholders “to identify any problematic aspects of medical education that may perpetuate institutional and structural racism.” For example, the AMA will work with other organizations to improve clinical algorithms that incorrectly adjust for race and lead to less-than-optimal care for minority patients.

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

Cynthia H. Moran, MD, has a medical degree, a passion for treating the elderly, and a desire to work. What she doesn’t have is a job or hopes of getting one anytime soon.

The Houston physician has never been charged with a crime, but she did run afoul of the Texas Medical Board, an experience she said has left her destitute and virtually unemployable in the medical field.

“By the time the board gets through with you, you will be bankrupt and have nothing,” she said.

Dr. Moran has a long, tangled history with the board involving self-prescribing, opioid abuse, depression, and unprofessional conduct. After years of license suspension, drug testing, additional CME, substance abuse treatment, and work restrictions, her supervision by the board ended in 2019, but she has been largely unable to find work as a physician.

“I feel like a felon. I really understand what it’s like to be someone who does their time but then can’t get a job, can’t get an apartment. It’s in your record and there’s nothing you can do about it,” she said.

Although Dr. Moran largely created her own troubles, her experience shows the power state medical licensing boards have when it comes to disciplining physicians.
 

Reprimands to revocations

Many physicians think of their state medical boards as simply the bodies that issue their medical licenses, but the boards have other functions, including investigating complaints against licensed medical professionals and sometimes disciplining them.

According to 2017 statistics from the Federation of State Medical Boards (the most recent available), state boards took 8,813 actions that year. These included 796 suspensions, 764 probations, 570 surrendered licenses, and 264 revoked licenses.

Boards also can order doctors to enter state-run physician health plans to receive treatment for substance abuse, or they can allow physicians to practice only under the supervision of colleagues.

Although they vary by state, the boards are fundamentally similar. Members are appointed by the governor. A majority of them are physicians, and the remainder are nonmedical professionals. Their investigators, often retired law enforcement officials, have broad powers to collect evidence, including medical records. Their authority is backed by the state attorney general.

Although physicians tend to worry more about being sued for malpractice, a medical board investigation can be more worrisome, said William Sullivan, DO, JD, an ED physician and attorney in Illinois who has represented doctors before that state’s board. Board disciplinary actions outnumber malpractice awards by four to one in that state.

“The gravity of this is something that many physicians don’t understand,” he said.
 

You can be the subject of anonymous complaints and investigations

Anyone can file a complaint against a physician with a state board. The grievances can be about anything from a crowded waiting room to physician impairment.

Of course, the most trivial complaints (out-of-date magazines in the waiting room) are dismissed out of hand, but boards have the authority to investigate whatever it chooses. The most common investigations center around complaints of impairment, substance abuse, improper prescribing, faulty medical records, mental and physical health problems, and standard of care. Boards also will act if a physician is found guilty of a crime or misconduct unrelated to his or her medical practice.

“There are a lot of ways doctors get into trouble,” said Edward Dauer, MD, a radiologist who served on the Florida board for 11 years.

Investigations often expand beyond their original scope into all aspects of a practice. “Once you’re on their radar, they can find something,” Dr. Sullivan said.

All punitive actions taken by state boards are reported to the Department of Health & Human Services’ National Practitioner Data Bank, which is accessible to all state boards. Sanctioned physicians who set up practice in another state often find that their new home has adopted the sanctions leveled by the original state, something boards can do without conducting their own investigations.

“For doctors, discipline is forever. It never goes off your record,” Dr. Dauer said.

In addition, Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers can exclude disciplined physicians, which can cripple a practice’s finances. So what can doctors do to avoid problems with the boards?
 

Don’t do anything wrong

That sounds glib and obvious, but many physicians get into trouble by unwittingly violating state medical regulations regarding such things as CME, insurance requirements, failure to notify the board of address changes, and personal relationships with current or former patients.

“The best advice to avoid these issues is to do a Google search for the Medical Practice Act in the state in which they practice,” said Dr. Sullivan. He noted that doctors should regularly check for changes in regulations.

Keeping on good terms with colleagues and patients also helps, he said, noting that many complaints stem from personal disputes and grievances.

But what if a physician becomes the subject of an investigation? What should they do?
 

Take any complaint seriously

Too many physicians dismiss investigations initially. “Some people have the wrong idea that if they ignore it, it will go away. It won’t go away,” Dr. Sullivan said.

Whether the initial contact comes through a letter or a visit from a board investigator, it should be treated with urgency. Ohio attorney Beth Collis said one client angrily scrawled one-word answers with a Sharpie on the questionnaire he was mailed – answers he was stuck defending throughout the rest of the investigation. Other doctors have ordered investigators out of their offices – another mistake. Failure to cooperate can result in an immediate license suspension.

“They should be speaking to these investigators like they were talking to a highway patrolman on the side of the road. They hold all the cards,” said Ms. Collis, who specializes in representing professionals before licensing boards.

Some physicians mistakenly assume that because their state board is made up mostly of fellow doctors, they will be able to make a complaint go away with some collegial chat.

Not so. “Medical board members see themselves as protecting the public. They’re very punitive,” Ms. Collis said.

At one time, state boards might have been lax in their supervision of physicians, but that changed in the 1980s when the watchdog group Public Citizen began ranking state medical boards by how effective they were in policing doctors.

Public Citizen used FSMB data on serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 doctors in each state to calculate its rankings, a practice that FSMB called incomplete and a misuse of its statistics. Nonetheless, the annual rankings generated a lot of publicity critical of state boards and might have spurred a tougher approach by regulators.

Public Citizen stopped publishing its annual rankings in 2013 after FSMB ceased supplying the data, but the get-tough approach remains, lawyers said.

About 95% of complaints are dismissed with nothing more serious than a letter to the doctor, but boards don’t hesitate to act when the misconduct is serious, said Dr. Dauer. “I felt it was my obligation to protect the public.”
 

Don’t try to fix it yourself

Although many complaints are anonymous, doctors can often figure out what or who it involves. Their impulse might be to contact a patient who complained, correct a medical record, or otherwise try to resolve the matter personally.

It’s better to leave things alone, the experts said. Don’t contact a patient. Give the board access to whatever information it asks for, but don’t alter anything, particularly medical records. “That’s how you’re going to get your license revoked,” Dr. Dauer said. He noted that when doctors add notations to records, they must date them.
 

Hire a lawyer

Many physicians assume they can resolve the complaint easily by explaining themselves to the board or investigators, or they don’t realize their license or practice could be at stake.

They’re better off letting a lawyer speak for them. Attorneys knowledgeable in this realm specialize in representing licensed professionals before regulatory boards and have the greatest knowledge of administrative law and how to negotiate the hearings and procedures.

Typically, a hearing is held before a subcommittee of the board, which can recommend a settlement to the full panel. Cases in which a settlement is not reached can go before the entire board.

Although full hearings can be similar to a trial, there are crucial differences regarding evidentiary rules and other matters, Ms. Collis said. For example, in Ohio, defendant physicians do not get to see the board’s full case against them before the hearing, which can make preparing a defense difficult. And the standard for burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence, as in civil suits, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal trial.

Cases that go to full hearings and beyond to appeals in state courts can take years to resolve, and a physician’s license can be suspended for the duration.
 

Get help before it’s too late

Physicians looking for support and advice can turn to organizations such as the Coalition for Physician Rights, an organization formed in 2018 by Kernan Manion, MD, a former psychiatrist who was forced to deactivate his license after an investigation by the North Carolina medical board.

The Coalition for Physician Rights has advised hundreds of physicians, most of whom he said come to him once they realize they’re in over their heads. “Almost everyone comes in too late,” Dr. Manion said. “They’re sitting ducks. They don’t know how to respond.”

In addition to offering advice and support, the Coalition for Physician Rights lobbies for reform in how boards operate. A number of states, including Oklahoma, have made reforms in recent years.

The appointed boards are too reliant on their administration and staff and usually rubber-stamp disciplinary recommendations, Dr. Manion said. He also criticized the boards’ lack of accountability: “A board operates without external or internal oversight. It is an autonomous entity operating on its own.”

As for Dr. Moran, at age 61, she’s interviewing for physician jobs around the country, refusing to give up medicine.

“What else can I do?” she said. “It’s what I’ve done my entire life. It’s what I went to school for. I don’t know how to do anything else.”

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

Cynthia H. Moran, MD, has a medical degree, a passion for treating the elderly, and a desire to work. What she doesn’t have is a job or hopes of getting one anytime soon.

The Houston physician has never been charged with a crime, but she did run afoul of the Texas Medical Board, an experience she said has left her destitute and virtually unemployable in the medical field.

“By the time the board gets through with you, you will be bankrupt and have nothing,” she said.

Dr. Moran has a long, tangled history with the board involving self-prescribing, opioid abuse, depression, and unprofessional conduct. After years of license suspension, drug testing, additional CME, substance abuse treatment, and work restrictions, her supervision by the board ended in 2019, but she has been largely unable to find work as a physician.

“I feel like a felon. I really understand what it’s like to be someone who does their time but then can’t get a job, can’t get an apartment. It’s in your record and there’s nothing you can do about it,” she said.

Although Dr. Moran largely created her own troubles, her experience shows the power state medical licensing boards have when it comes to disciplining physicians.
 

Reprimands to revocations

Many physicians think of their state medical boards as simply the bodies that issue their medical licenses, but the boards have other functions, including investigating complaints against licensed medical professionals and sometimes disciplining them.

According to 2017 statistics from the Federation of State Medical Boards (the most recent available), state boards took 8,813 actions that year. These included 796 suspensions, 764 probations, 570 surrendered licenses, and 264 revoked licenses.

Boards also can order doctors to enter state-run physician health plans to receive treatment for substance abuse, or they can allow physicians to practice only under the supervision of colleagues.

Although they vary by state, the boards are fundamentally similar. Members are appointed by the governor. A majority of them are physicians, and the remainder are nonmedical professionals. Their investigators, often retired law enforcement officials, have broad powers to collect evidence, including medical records. Their authority is backed by the state attorney general.

Although physicians tend to worry more about being sued for malpractice, a medical board investigation can be more worrisome, said William Sullivan, DO, JD, an ED physician and attorney in Illinois who has represented doctors before that state’s board. Board disciplinary actions outnumber malpractice awards by four to one in that state.

“The gravity of this is something that many physicians don’t understand,” he said.
 

You can be the subject of anonymous complaints and investigations

Anyone can file a complaint against a physician with a state board. The grievances can be about anything from a crowded waiting room to physician impairment.

Of course, the most trivial complaints (out-of-date magazines in the waiting room) are dismissed out of hand, but boards have the authority to investigate whatever it chooses. The most common investigations center around complaints of impairment, substance abuse, improper prescribing, faulty medical records, mental and physical health problems, and standard of care. Boards also will act if a physician is found guilty of a crime or misconduct unrelated to his or her medical practice.

“There are a lot of ways doctors get into trouble,” said Edward Dauer, MD, a radiologist who served on the Florida board for 11 years.

Investigations often expand beyond their original scope into all aspects of a practice. “Once you’re on their radar, they can find something,” Dr. Sullivan said.

All punitive actions taken by state boards are reported to the Department of Health & Human Services’ National Practitioner Data Bank, which is accessible to all state boards. Sanctioned physicians who set up practice in another state often find that their new home has adopted the sanctions leveled by the original state, something boards can do without conducting their own investigations.

“For doctors, discipline is forever. It never goes off your record,” Dr. Dauer said.

In addition, Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers can exclude disciplined physicians, which can cripple a practice’s finances. So what can doctors do to avoid problems with the boards?
 

Don’t do anything wrong

That sounds glib and obvious, but many physicians get into trouble by unwittingly violating state medical regulations regarding such things as CME, insurance requirements, failure to notify the board of address changes, and personal relationships with current or former patients.

“The best advice to avoid these issues is to do a Google search for the Medical Practice Act in the state in which they practice,” said Dr. Sullivan. He noted that doctors should regularly check for changes in regulations.

Keeping on good terms with colleagues and patients also helps, he said, noting that many complaints stem from personal disputes and grievances.

But what if a physician becomes the subject of an investigation? What should they do?
 

Take any complaint seriously

Too many physicians dismiss investigations initially. “Some people have the wrong idea that if they ignore it, it will go away. It won’t go away,” Dr. Sullivan said.

Whether the initial contact comes through a letter or a visit from a board investigator, it should be treated with urgency. Ohio attorney Beth Collis said one client angrily scrawled one-word answers with a Sharpie on the questionnaire he was mailed – answers he was stuck defending throughout the rest of the investigation. Other doctors have ordered investigators out of their offices – another mistake. Failure to cooperate can result in an immediate license suspension.

“They should be speaking to these investigators like they were talking to a highway patrolman on the side of the road. They hold all the cards,” said Ms. Collis, who specializes in representing professionals before licensing boards.

Some physicians mistakenly assume that because their state board is made up mostly of fellow doctors, they will be able to make a complaint go away with some collegial chat.

Not so. “Medical board members see themselves as protecting the public. They’re very punitive,” Ms. Collis said.

At one time, state boards might have been lax in their supervision of physicians, but that changed in the 1980s when the watchdog group Public Citizen began ranking state medical boards by how effective they were in policing doctors.

Public Citizen used FSMB data on serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 doctors in each state to calculate its rankings, a practice that FSMB called incomplete and a misuse of its statistics. Nonetheless, the annual rankings generated a lot of publicity critical of state boards and might have spurred a tougher approach by regulators.

Public Citizen stopped publishing its annual rankings in 2013 after FSMB ceased supplying the data, but the get-tough approach remains, lawyers said.

About 95% of complaints are dismissed with nothing more serious than a letter to the doctor, but boards don’t hesitate to act when the misconduct is serious, said Dr. Dauer. “I felt it was my obligation to protect the public.”
 

Don’t try to fix it yourself

Although many complaints are anonymous, doctors can often figure out what or who it involves. Their impulse might be to contact a patient who complained, correct a medical record, or otherwise try to resolve the matter personally.

It’s better to leave things alone, the experts said. Don’t contact a patient. Give the board access to whatever information it asks for, but don’t alter anything, particularly medical records. “That’s how you’re going to get your license revoked,” Dr. Dauer said. He noted that when doctors add notations to records, they must date them.
 

Hire a lawyer

Many physicians assume they can resolve the complaint easily by explaining themselves to the board or investigators, or they don’t realize their license or practice could be at stake.

They’re better off letting a lawyer speak for them. Attorneys knowledgeable in this realm specialize in representing licensed professionals before regulatory boards and have the greatest knowledge of administrative law and how to negotiate the hearings and procedures.

Typically, a hearing is held before a subcommittee of the board, which can recommend a settlement to the full panel. Cases in which a settlement is not reached can go before the entire board.

Although full hearings can be similar to a trial, there are crucial differences regarding evidentiary rules and other matters, Ms. Collis said. For example, in Ohio, defendant physicians do not get to see the board’s full case against them before the hearing, which can make preparing a defense difficult. And the standard for burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence, as in civil suits, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal trial.

Cases that go to full hearings and beyond to appeals in state courts can take years to resolve, and a physician’s license can be suspended for the duration.
 

Get help before it’s too late

Physicians looking for support and advice can turn to organizations such as the Coalition for Physician Rights, an organization formed in 2018 by Kernan Manion, MD, a former psychiatrist who was forced to deactivate his license after an investigation by the North Carolina medical board.

The Coalition for Physician Rights has advised hundreds of physicians, most of whom he said come to him once they realize they’re in over their heads. “Almost everyone comes in too late,” Dr. Manion said. “They’re sitting ducks. They don’t know how to respond.”

In addition to offering advice and support, the Coalition for Physician Rights lobbies for reform in how boards operate. A number of states, including Oklahoma, have made reforms in recent years.

The appointed boards are too reliant on their administration and staff and usually rubber-stamp disciplinary recommendations, Dr. Manion said. He also criticized the boards’ lack of accountability: “A board operates without external or internal oversight. It is an autonomous entity operating on its own.”

As for Dr. Moran, at age 61, she’s interviewing for physician jobs around the country, refusing to give up medicine.

“What else can I do?” she said. “It’s what I’ve done my entire life. It’s what I went to school for. I don’t know how to do anything else.”

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

Cynthia H. Moran, MD, has a medical degree, a passion for treating the elderly, and a desire to work. What she doesn’t have is a job or hopes of getting one anytime soon.

The Houston physician has never been charged with a crime, but she did run afoul of the Texas Medical Board, an experience she said has left her destitute and virtually unemployable in the medical field.

“By the time the board gets through with you, you will be bankrupt and have nothing,” she said.

Dr. Moran has a long, tangled history with the board involving self-prescribing, opioid abuse, depression, and unprofessional conduct. After years of license suspension, drug testing, additional CME, substance abuse treatment, and work restrictions, her supervision by the board ended in 2019, but she has been largely unable to find work as a physician.

“I feel like a felon. I really understand what it’s like to be someone who does their time but then can’t get a job, can’t get an apartment. It’s in your record and there’s nothing you can do about it,” she said.

Although Dr. Moran largely created her own troubles, her experience shows the power state medical licensing boards have when it comes to disciplining physicians.
 

Reprimands to revocations

Many physicians think of their state medical boards as simply the bodies that issue their medical licenses, but the boards have other functions, including investigating complaints against licensed medical professionals and sometimes disciplining them.

According to 2017 statistics from the Federation of State Medical Boards (the most recent available), state boards took 8,813 actions that year. These included 796 suspensions, 764 probations, 570 surrendered licenses, and 264 revoked licenses.

Boards also can order doctors to enter state-run physician health plans to receive treatment for substance abuse, or they can allow physicians to practice only under the supervision of colleagues.

Although they vary by state, the boards are fundamentally similar. Members are appointed by the governor. A majority of them are physicians, and the remainder are nonmedical professionals. Their investigators, often retired law enforcement officials, have broad powers to collect evidence, including medical records. Their authority is backed by the state attorney general.

Although physicians tend to worry more about being sued for malpractice, a medical board investigation can be more worrisome, said William Sullivan, DO, JD, an ED physician and attorney in Illinois who has represented doctors before that state’s board. Board disciplinary actions outnumber malpractice awards by four to one in that state.

“The gravity of this is something that many physicians don’t understand,” he said.
 

You can be the subject of anonymous complaints and investigations

Anyone can file a complaint against a physician with a state board. The grievances can be about anything from a crowded waiting room to physician impairment.

Of course, the most trivial complaints (out-of-date magazines in the waiting room) are dismissed out of hand, but boards have the authority to investigate whatever it chooses. The most common investigations center around complaints of impairment, substance abuse, improper prescribing, faulty medical records, mental and physical health problems, and standard of care. Boards also will act if a physician is found guilty of a crime or misconduct unrelated to his or her medical practice.

“There are a lot of ways doctors get into trouble,” said Edward Dauer, MD, a radiologist who served on the Florida board for 11 years.

Investigations often expand beyond their original scope into all aspects of a practice. “Once you’re on their radar, they can find something,” Dr. Sullivan said.

All punitive actions taken by state boards are reported to the Department of Health & Human Services’ National Practitioner Data Bank, which is accessible to all state boards. Sanctioned physicians who set up practice in another state often find that their new home has adopted the sanctions leveled by the original state, something boards can do without conducting their own investigations.

“For doctors, discipline is forever. It never goes off your record,” Dr. Dauer said.

In addition, Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers can exclude disciplined physicians, which can cripple a practice’s finances. So what can doctors do to avoid problems with the boards?
 

Don’t do anything wrong

That sounds glib and obvious, but many physicians get into trouble by unwittingly violating state medical regulations regarding such things as CME, insurance requirements, failure to notify the board of address changes, and personal relationships with current or former patients.

“The best advice to avoid these issues is to do a Google search for the Medical Practice Act in the state in which they practice,” said Dr. Sullivan. He noted that doctors should regularly check for changes in regulations.

Keeping on good terms with colleagues and patients also helps, he said, noting that many complaints stem from personal disputes and grievances.

But what if a physician becomes the subject of an investigation? What should they do?
 

Take any complaint seriously

Too many physicians dismiss investigations initially. “Some people have the wrong idea that if they ignore it, it will go away. It won’t go away,” Dr. Sullivan said.

Whether the initial contact comes through a letter or a visit from a board investigator, it should be treated with urgency. Ohio attorney Beth Collis said one client angrily scrawled one-word answers with a Sharpie on the questionnaire he was mailed – answers he was stuck defending throughout the rest of the investigation. Other doctors have ordered investigators out of their offices – another mistake. Failure to cooperate can result in an immediate license suspension.

“They should be speaking to these investigators like they were talking to a highway patrolman on the side of the road. They hold all the cards,” said Ms. Collis, who specializes in representing professionals before licensing boards.

Some physicians mistakenly assume that because their state board is made up mostly of fellow doctors, they will be able to make a complaint go away with some collegial chat.

Not so. “Medical board members see themselves as protecting the public. They’re very punitive,” Ms. Collis said.

At one time, state boards might have been lax in their supervision of physicians, but that changed in the 1980s when the watchdog group Public Citizen began ranking state medical boards by how effective they were in policing doctors.

Public Citizen used FSMB data on serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 doctors in each state to calculate its rankings, a practice that FSMB called incomplete and a misuse of its statistics. Nonetheless, the annual rankings generated a lot of publicity critical of state boards and might have spurred a tougher approach by regulators.

Public Citizen stopped publishing its annual rankings in 2013 after FSMB ceased supplying the data, but the get-tough approach remains, lawyers said.

About 95% of complaints are dismissed with nothing more serious than a letter to the doctor, but boards don’t hesitate to act when the misconduct is serious, said Dr. Dauer. “I felt it was my obligation to protect the public.”
 

Don’t try to fix it yourself

Although many complaints are anonymous, doctors can often figure out what or who it involves. Their impulse might be to contact a patient who complained, correct a medical record, or otherwise try to resolve the matter personally.

It’s better to leave things alone, the experts said. Don’t contact a patient. Give the board access to whatever information it asks for, but don’t alter anything, particularly medical records. “That’s how you’re going to get your license revoked,” Dr. Dauer said. He noted that when doctors add notations to records, they must date them.
 

Hire a lawyer

Many physicians assume they can resolve the complaint easily by explaining themselves to the board or investigators, or they don’t realize their license or practice could be at stake.

They’re better off letting a lawyer speak for them. Attorneys knowledgeable in this realm specialize in representing licensed professionals before regulatory boards and have the greatest knowledge of administrative law and how to negotiate the hearings and procedures.

Typically, a hearing is held before a subcommittee of the board, which can recommend a settlement to the full panel. Cases in which a settlement is not reached can go before the entire board.

Although full hearings can be similar to a trial, there are crucial differences regarding evidentiary rules and other matters, Ms. Collis said. For example, in Ohio, defendant physicians do not get to see the board’s full case against them before the hearing, which can make preparing a defense difficult. And the standard for burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence, as in civil suits, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal trial.

Cases that go to full hearings and beyond to appeals in state courts can take years to resolve, and a physician’s license can be suspended for the duration.
 

Get help before it’s too late

Physicians looking for support and advice can turn to organizations such as the Coalition for Physician Rights, an organization formed in 2018 by Kernan Manion, MD, a former psychiatrist who was forced to deactivate his license after an investigation by the North Carolina medical board.

The Coalition for Physician Rights has advised hundreds of physicians, most of whom he said come to him once they realize they’re in over their heads. “Almost everyone comes in too late,” Dr. Manion said. “They’re sitting ducks. They don’t know how to respond.”

In addition to offering advice and support, the Coalition for Physician Rights lobbies for reform in how boards operate. A number of states, including Oklahoma, have made reforms in recent years.

The appointed boards are too reliant on their administration and staff and usually rubber-stamp disciplinary recommendations, Dr. Manion said. He also criticized the boards’ lack of accountability: “A board operates without external or internal oversight. It is an autonomous entity operating on its own.”

As for Dr. Moran, at age 61, she’s interviewing for physician jobs around the country, refusing to give up medicine.

“What else can I do?” she said. “It’s what I’ve done my entire life. It’s what I went to school for. I don’t know how to do anything else.”

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

Slowly tapering off – or remaining on – antimalarial medications can help prevent disease flare in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who’ve achieved clinical remission for at least a year, according to a new study that was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Except in the setting of toxicity, cessation of antimalarial medication in patients with disease quiescence is feasible using a slow taper,” lead author Danaë Papachristos, MBBS, said during an oral abstract presentation at the online meeting. Dr. Papachristos conducted the research while a clinical and research fellow at the University of Toronto’s lupus clinic, but is now a consultant rheumatologist at the Wesley Hospital in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

To investigate flare in patients with SLE who were on or recently off antimalarial medications (AMs), the researchers identified 1,573 potential participants from a long-term observational cohort study at the university’s lupus clinic. From that larger group, 88 cases – patients who achieved clinical remission for at least a year and stopped taking AMs – were matched to at least one control – patients who also achieved remission and continued on medication. Most cases were also matched to a second control, bringing the total number to 173. All patients had at least 2 years of follow-up.

Flare was defined as any increase in the SLEDAI-2K score, with major flare defined as an increase of 4 or more. Patients in the case group were roughly 44 years old, compared with an average age of 46 in the control group. Both groups were almost entirely female and largely white. Reasons for withdrawal in the case group included self-cessation, disease quiescence, and retinal, mucocutaneous, or cardiac toxicities. Twenty participants in the case group reported AM toxicity, compared with four controls.

Dr. Papachristos noted in her presentation that the toxicity disparity was expected, “because controls are those who continue their medication, and most patients who have toxicity will stop their medication.”

Disease flare occurred in 61.4% of cases, compared with 45.1% of controls (P = .002), with the most common types being cutaneous and musculoskeletal flares. After multivariate analysis, the risk of flare more than doubled for those who ceased AMs (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-4.11; P = .008). More than half of the cases (n = 46) restarted AMs after withdrawal, which was largely due to disease flare. Of the patients who restarted due to flare, 88% either recaptured control or improved, and the remaining 12% had further flares.

Of the 88 patients in the case group, 51 abruptly withdrew AMs while 37 tapered off. Patients who tapered had fewer flares (45.9%), compared with patients who withdrew abruptly (72.6%). After multivariate analysis, the risk of flare more than tripled for the abrupt withdrawal group (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.26-9.26; P = .016). Fewer patients who tapered later restarted AMs, compared with the abrupt withdrawal group (37.8% vs. 62.7%; P = .02).

When asked about other differences in medications between the two groups, Dr. Papachristos answered: “We didn’t look into that specifically. We did look at those patients who were on prednisone and on any immunosuppression, although we didn’t look at specific therapies. Those variables were adjusted for in the analysis, and it didn’t make any difference if patients were on immunosuppression or prednisone at the point of index date.

“But we would like to look into the different forms of immunosuppression,” she added, “just to see if that made any difference.”

Withdrawing hydroxychloroquine in older patients

Older patients with SLE who discontinue their use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are also not at increased risk of disease flare, according to a retrospective chart review from rheumatologists Ruth Fernandez-Ruiz, MD, and Peter M. Izmirly, MD, of New York University (Arthritis Res Ther. 2020;22:191. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-02282-0).

“We wanted to focus on older patients who may have a lower risk of flaring and a higher risk of side effects from the drug,” Dr. Fernandez-Ruiz said in an interview.

The doctors embarked on the study after noticing eye and heart toxicities in certain older patients. They matched 26 lupus patients who had been on HCQ for at least 5 years before discontinuing the drug with 32 control patients who remained on HCQ, ultimately finding that withdrawal had no effect on their risk of lupus flares within a year.

“After starting a drug, the second question most people ask, after ‘What are the side effects?’ is ‘How long do I have to be on this?’ ” Dr. Izmirly said in an interview. “These patients are having side effects associated with long-term HCQ use. And we were noticing that, after you stop the drug, despite what you’re taught, they weren’t flaring.”

Only five patients from each group – 19.2% of the withdrawal group and 15.6% of the continuation group – experienced a flare (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.31-5.30; P = .73). Most of the flares were cutaneous and musculoskeletal in nature, and no severe flares occurred in either group.

“On each side, the overall flare rate was not that high, and they were all relatively mild,” Dr. Izmirly said.

The two doctors acknowledged their study’s smaller sample size, compared with the study by Papachristos and colleagues, along with the advanced age of their patient population, which limits the generalizability of their findings. “We selected patients who had a very low disease activity to begin with, and who were older,” Dr. Fernandez-Ruiz noted.

That said, they reinforced the scarcity of existing research on this subset of lupus patients, one that will only continue to grow.

“Older [patients with] lupus,” Dr. Izmirly said, are “an understudied demographic.”

One of the authors of the study presented at ACR 2020 acknowledged receiving research support and consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The HCQ study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; its authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Papachristos D et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10). Abstract 0983.

Slowly tapering off – or remaining on – antimalarial medications can help prevent disease flare in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who’ve achieved clinical remission for at least a year, according to a new study that was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Except in the setting of toxicity, cessation of antimalarial medication in patients with disease quiescence is feasible using a slow taper,” lead author Danaë Papachristos, MBBS, said during an oral abstract presentation at the online meeting. Dr. Papachristos conducted the research while a clinical and research fellow at the University of Toronto’s lupus clinic, but is now a consultant rheumatologist at the Wesley Hospital in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

To investigate flare in patients with SLE who were on or recently off antimalarial medications (AMs), the researchers identified 1,573 potential participants from a long-term observational cohort study at the university’s lupus clinic. From that larger group, 88 cases – patients who achieved clinical remission for at least a year and stopped taking AMs – were matched to at least one control – patients who also achieved remission and continued on medication. Most cases were also matched to a second control, bringing the total number to 173. All patients had at least 2 years of follow-up.

Flare was defined as any increase in the SLEDAI-2K score, with major flare defined as an increase of 4 or more. Patients in the case group were roughly 44 years old, compared with an average age of 46 in the control group. Both groups were almost entirely female and largely white. Reasons for withdrawal in the case group included self-cessation, disease quiescence, and retinal, mucocutaneous, or cardiac toxicities. Twenty participants in the case group reported AM toxicity, compared with four controls.

Dr. Papachristos noted in her presentation that the toxicity disparity was expected, “because controls are those who continue their medication, and most patients who have toxicity will stop their medication.”

Disease flare occurred in 61.4% of cases, compared with 45.1% of controls (P = .002), with the most common types being cutaneous and musculoskeletal flares. After multivariate analysis, the risk of flare more than doubled for those who ceased AMs (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-4.11; P = .008). More than half of the cases (n = 46) restarted AMs after withdrawal, which was largely due to disease flare. Of the patients who restarted due to flare, 88% either recaptured control or improved, and the remaining 12% had further flares.

Of the 88 patients in the case group, 51 abruptly withdrew AMs while 37 tapered off. Patients who tapered had fewer flares (45.9%), compared with patients who withdrew abruptly (72.6%). After multivariate analysis, the risk of flare more than tripled for the abrupt withdrawal group (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.26-9.26; P = .016). Fewer patients who tapered later restarted AMs, compared with the abrupt withdrawal group (37.8% vs. 62.7%; P = .02).

When asked about other differences in medications between the two groups, Dr. Papachristos answered: “We didn’t look into that specifically. We did look at those patients who were on prednisone and on any immunosuppression, although we didn’t look at specific therapies. Those variables were adjusted for in the analysis, and it didn’t make any difference if patients were on immunosuppression or prednisone at the point of index date.

“But we would like to look into the different forms of immunosuppression,” she added, “just to see if that made any difference.”

Withdrawing hydroxychloroquine in older patients

Older patients with SLE who discontinue their use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are also not at increased risk of disease flare, according to a retrospective chart review from rheumatologists Ruth Fernandez-Ruiz, MD, and Peter M. Izmirly, MD, of New York University (Arthritis Res Ther. 2020;22:191. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-02282-0).

“We wanted to focus on older patients who may have a lower risk of flaring and a higher risk of side effects from the drug,” Dr. Fernandez-Ruiz said in an interview.

The doctors embarked on the study after noticing eye and heart toxicities in certain older patients. They matched 26 lupus patients who had been on HCQ for at least 5 years before discontinuing the drug with 32 control patients who remained on HCQ, ultimately finding that withdrawal had no effect on their risk of lupus flares within a year.

“After starting a drug, the second question most people ask, after ‘What are the side effects?’ is ‘How long do I have to be on this?’ ” Dr. Izmirly said in an interview. “These patients are having side effects associated with long-term HCQ use. And we were noticing that, after you stop the drug, despite what you’re taught, they weren’t flaring.”

Only five patients from each group – 19.2% of the withdrawal group and 15.6% of the continuation group – experienced a flare (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.31-5.30; P = .73). Most of the flares were cutaneous and musculoskeletal in nature, and no severe flares occurred in either group.

“On each side, the overall flare rate was not that high, and they were all relatively mild,” Dr. Izmirly said.

The two doctors acknowledged their study’s smaller sample size, compared with the study by Papachristos and colleagues, along with the advanced age of their patient population, which limits the generalizability of their findings. “We selected patients who had a very low disease activity to begin with, and who were older,” Dr. Fernandez-Ruiz noted.

That said, they reinforced the scarcity of existing research on this subset of lupus patients, one that will only continue to grow.

“Older [patients with] lupus,” Dr. Izmirly said, are “an understudied demographic.”

One of the authors of the study presented at ACR 2020 acknowledged receiving research support and consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The HCQ study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; its authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Papachristos D et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10). Abstract 0983.

Slowly tapering off – or remaining on – antimalarial medications can help prevent disease flare in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who’ve achieved clinical remission for at least a year, according to a new study that was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Except in the setting of toxicity, cessation of antimalarial medication in patients with disease quiescence is feasible using a slow taper,” lead author Danaë Papachristos, MBBS, said during an oral abstract presentation at the online meeting. Dr. Papachristos conducted the research while a clinical and research fellow at the University of Toronto’s lupus clinic, but is now a consultant rheumatologist at the Wesley Hospital in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

To investigate flare in patients with SLE who were on or recently off antimalarial medications (AMs), the researchers identified 1,573 potential participants from a long-term observational cohort study at the university’s lupus clinic. From that larger group, 88 cases – patients who achieved clinical remission for at least a year and stopped taking AMs – were matched to at least one control – patients who also achieved remission and continued on medication. Most cases were also matched to a second control, bringing the total number to 173. All patients had at least 2 years of follow-up.

Flare was defined as any increase in the SLEDAI-2K score, with major flare defined as an increase of 4 or more. Patients in the case group were roughly 44 years old, compared with an average age of 46 in the control group. Both groups were almost entirely female and largely white. Reasons for withdrawal in the case group included self-cessation, disease quiescence, and retinal, mucocutaneous, or cardiac toxicities. Twenty participants in the case group reported AM toxicity, compared with four controls.

Dr. Papachristos noted in her presentation that the toxicity disparity was expected, “because controls are those who continue their medication, and most patients who have toxicity will stop their medication.”

Disease flare occurred in 61.4% of cases, compared with 45.1% of controls (P = .002), with the most common types being cutaneous and musculoskeletal flares. After multivariate analysis, the risk of flare more than doubled for those who ceased AMs (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-4.11; P = .008). More than half of the cases (n = 46) restarted AMs after withdrawal, which was largely due to disease flare. Of the patients who restarted due to flare, 88% either recaptured control or improved, and the remaining 12% had further flares.

Of the 88 patients in the case group, 51 abruptly withdrew AMs while 37 tapered off. Patients who tapered had fewer flares (45.9%), compared with patients who withdrew abruptly (72.6%). After multivariate analysis, the risk of flare more than tripled for the abrupt withdrawal group (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.26-9.26; P = .016). Fewer patients who tapered later restarted AMs, compared with the abrupt withdrawal group (37.8% vs. 62.7%; P = .02).

When asked about other differences in medications between the two groups, Dr. Papachristos answered: “We didn’t look into that specifically. We did look at those patients who were on prednisone and on any immunosuppression, although we didn’t look at specific therapies. Those variables were adjusted for in the analysis, and it didn’t make any difference if patients were on immunosuppression or prednisone at the point of index date.

“But we would like to look into the different forms of immunosuppression,” she added, “just to see if that made any difference.”

Withdrawing hydroxychloroquine in older patients

Older patients with SLE who discontinue their use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are also not at increased risk of disease flare, according to a retrospective chart review from rheumatologists Ruth Fernandez-Ruiz, MD, and Peter M. Izmirly, MD, of New York University (Arthritis Res Ther. 2020;22:191. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-02282-0).

“We wanted to focus on older patients who may have a lower risk of flaring and a higher risk of side effects from the drug,” Dr. Fernandez-Ruiz said in an interview.

The doctors embarked on the study after noticing eye and heart toxicities in certain older patients. They matched 26 lupus patients who had been on HCQ for at least 5 years before discontinuing the drug with 32 control patients who remained on HCQ, ultimately finding that withdrawal had no effect on their risk of lupus flares within a year.

“After starting a drug, the second question most people ask, after ‘What are the side effects?’ is ‘How long do I have to be on this?’ ” Dr. Izmirly said in an interview. “These patients are having side effects associated with long-term HCQ use. And we were noticing that, after you stop the drug, despite what you’re taught, they weren’t flaring.”

Only five patients from each group – 19.2% of the withdrawal group and 15.6% of the continuation group – experienced a flare (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.31-5.30; P = .73). Most of the flares were cutaneous and musculoskeletal in nature, and no severe flares occurred in either group.

“On each side, the overall flare rate was not that high, and they were all relatively mild,” Dr. Izmirly said.

The two doctors acknowledged their study’s smaller sample size, compared with the study by Papachristos and colleagues, along with the advanced age of their patient population, which limits the generalizability of their findings. “We selected patients who had a very low disease activity to begin with, and who were older,” Dr. Fernandez-Ruiz noted.

That said, they reinforced the scarcity of existing research on this subset of lupus patients, one that will only continue to grow.

“Older [patients with] lupus,” Dr. Izmirly said, are “an understudied demographic.”

One of the authors of the study presented at ACR 2020 acknowledged receiving research support and consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The HCQ study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; its authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Papachristos D et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10). Abstract 0983.

Recognizing the ongoing value of benzoyl peroxide, educating patients about the role of antibiotics, and embracing spironolactone are among the acne treatment pearls provided by Hilary Baldwin, MD, during a virtual presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Kinan Ayu/Creative Commons license

Benzoyl peroxide celebrates its 60th birthday and is still going strong as an acne treatment, said Dr. Baldwin, of the department of dermatology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnston Medical Center, New Brunswick, N.J. Benzoyl peroxide can be used as a stand-alone and has the added benefit of not being associated with antimicrobial resistance. In addition, “benzoyl peroxide is the heavy lifter in combinations,” she said. In fact, benzoyl peroxide can prevent the development of resistance to topical and oral antibiotics such as clindamycin, and can reverse resistance that has occurred, she noted.

However, patient compliance can be an issue. Benzoyl peroxide often is underused because of its tendency to bleach fabric, noted Dr. Baldwin, who is also medical director of The Acne Treatment and Research Center in New York. To help combat this problem and improve compliance, she advises patients to establish a dosing schedule for benzoyl peroxide, such as using it first thing in the morning, or applying in the afternoon and using a paper towel first, or a white towel, to wash their faces at bedtime, she said. When dealing with teenagers, “it sounds like a lot of work, but it makes the mothers much happier not to have their towels bleached.”

Although clinicians want to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use in acne, there is a place for antibiotics, but not as monotherapy, Dr. Baldwin said. Instead, initiate topical therapy, such as a retinoid or benzoyl peroxide, simultaneously with antibiotics and evaluate the response in 6-8 weeks, she advised. At that point, the antibiotics can be stopped, even if 100% clearing has not been achieved, and “the topicals can carry you on for months and months,” she noted.

Also, in female patients, consider oral contraceptive pills or spironolactone at the same time as oral antibiotics, then discontinue the antibiotics and continue with the hormonal therapy, she added. “Plan your exit strategy early,” she said. Explain to patients that you will stop the oral antibiotics after 2 months, so they must continue with the topicals.

“Embrace spironolactone if you haven’t already,” said Dr. Baldwin, who noted that spironolactone has been underused in recent years. Spironolactone use for acne has not been well studied, “but consensus groups and expert opinions certainly favor its use,” she added.

Recognizing the ongoing value of benzoyl peroxide, educating patients about the role of antibiotics, and embracing spironolactone are among the acne treatment pearls provided by Hilary Baldwin, MD, during a virtual presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Kinan Ayu/Creative Commons license

Benzoyl peroxide celebrates its 60th birthday and is still going strong as an acne treatment, said Dr. Baldwin, of the department of dermatology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnston Medical Center, New Brunswick, N.J. Benzoyl peroxide can be used as a stand-alone and has the added benefit of not being associated with antimicrobial resistance. In addition, “benzoyl peroxide is the heavy lifter in combinations,” she said. In fact, benzoyl peroxide can prevent the development of resistance to topical and oral antibiotics such as clindamycin, and can reverse resistance that has occurred, she noted.

However, patient compliance can be an issue. Benzoyl peroxide often is underused because of its tendency to bleach fabric, noted Dr. Baldwin, who is also medical director of The Acne Treatment and Research Center in New York. To help combat this problem and improve compliance, she advises patients to establish a dosing schedule for benzoyl peroxide, such as using it first thing in the morning, or applying in the afternoon and using a paper towel first, or a white towel, to wash their faces at bedtime, she said. When dealing with teenagers, “it sounds like a lot of work, but it makes the mothers much happier not to have their towels bleached.”

Although clinicians want to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use in acne, there is a place for antibiotics, but not as monotherapy, Dr. Baldwin said. Instead, initiate topical therapy, such as a retinoid or benzoyl peroxide, simultaneously with antibiotics and evaluate the response in 6-8 weeks, she advised. At that point, the antibiotics can be stopped, even if 100% clearing has not been achieved, and “the topicals can carry you on for months and months,” she noted.

Also, in female patients, consider oral contraceptive pills or spironolactone at the same time as oral antibiotics, then discontinue the antibiotics and continue with the hormonal therapy, she added. “Plan your exit strategy early,” she said. Explain to patients that you will stop the oral antibiotics after 2 months, so they must continue with the topicals.

“Embrace spironolactone if you haven’t already,” said Dr. Baldwin, who noted that spironolactone has been underused in recent years. Spironolactone use for acne has not been well studied, “but consensus groups and expert opinions certainly favor its use,” she added.

Recognizing the ongoing value of benzoyl peroxide, educating patients about the role of antibiotics, and embracing spironolactone are among the acne treatment pearls provided by Hilary Baldwin, MD, during a virtual presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Kinan Ayu/Creative Commons license

Benzoyl peroxide celebrates its 60th birthday and is still going strong as an acne treatment, said Dr. Baldwin, of the department of dermatology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnston Medical Center, New Brunswick, N.J. Benzoyl peroxide can be used as a stand-alone and has the added benefit of not being associated with antimicrobial resistance. In addition, “benzoyl peroxide is the heavy lifter in combinations,” she said. In fact, benzoyl peroxide can prevent the development of resistance to topical and oral antibiotics such as clindamycin, and can reverse resistance that has occurred, she noted.

However, patient compliance can be an issue. Benzoyl peroxide often is underused because of its tendency to bleach fabric, noted Dr. Baldwin, who is also medical director of The Acne Treatment and Research Center in New York. To help combat this problem and improve compliance, she advises patients to establish a dosing schedule for benzoyl peroxide, such as using it first thing in the morning, or applying in the afternoon and using a paper towel first, or a white towel, to wash their faces at bedtime, she said. When dealing with teenagers, “it sounds like a lot of work, but it makes the mothers much happier not to have their towels bleached.”

Although clinicians want to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use in acne, there is a place for antibiotics, but not as monotherapy, Dr. Baldwin said. Instead, initiate topical therapy, such as a retinoid or benzoyl peroxide, simultaneously with antibiotics and evaluate the response in 6-8 weeks, she advised. At that point, the antibiotics can be stopped, even if 100% clearing has not been achieved, and “the topicals can carry you on for months and months,” she noted.

Also, in female patients, consider oral contraceptive pills or spironolactone at the same time as oral antibiotics, then discontinue the antibiotics and continue with the hormonal therapy, she added. “Plan your exit strategy early,” she said. Explain to patients that you will stop the oral antibiotics after 2 months, so they must continue with the topicals.

“Embrace spironolactone if you haven’t already,” said Dr. Baldwin, who noted that spironolactone has been underused in recent years. Spironolactone use for acne has not been well studied, “but consensus groups and expert opinions certainly favor its use,” she added.

Patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 3 infection have shown resistance to direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatments. However, a meta-analysis of 34 research reports found that DAA combo treatment can be effective in achieving sustained virologic response (SVR) in patients with HCV genotype 3, according to a study published online in Annals of Hepatology.

This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of four regimens: sofosbuvir (SOF)/daclatasvir (DCV) with or without ribavirin (RBV); SOF/velpatasvir (VEL) with or without RBV; SOF/VEL/voxilaprevir (VOX);and glecaprevir (GLE)/pibrentasvir (PIB) in the treatment of HCV genotype 3–infected patients in real-world situations, according to Liwei Zhuang, of Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, and colleagues.

A total of 34 studies, comprising 7,328 patients from 22 countries, met the inclusion criteria and formed the basis of the analysis.
 

Promising results

The pooled SVR rate after 12 or 24 weeks of treatment for the four regimens was 92.1%.

For each regimen, the SVR rate was 91.2% in patients treated with SOF/DCV with or without RBV; 95.1% in patients treated with SOF/VEL with or without RBV; 85.0% in patients treated with SOF/VEL/VOX; and 98.5% in patients treated with GLE/PIB.

In addition, the pooled SVR rate of the four regimens was 95.2% in patients without cirrhosis and 89.4% in patients with cirrhosis, and the pooled SVR rate was 94.4% in treatment-naive patients and 88.0% in treatment-experienced patients. All results were within 95% confidence intervals.

The researchers pointed out that their meta-analysis had limitations. “We think that no strong conclusions can be drawn due to high heterogeneity in four DAA regimens administration in real-world setting from 22 countries, as well as small numbers of patients treated with SOF + VEL + VOX and GLE + PIB. More studies are needed in the future in order to better analyze the antiviral effectiveness of DAAs in GT3 HCV patients in real-world studies,” they authors stated.

However, they also concluded that “the antiviral effectiveness of treatment regimens for HCV-GT3 [genotype 3] infection, including SOF + DCV ± RBV, SOF + VEL ± RBV, GLE + PIB, and SOF + VEL + VOX, was good. The SVR rate of GLE + PIB was higher, and the treatment duration was shorter than other regimens.”

The study was funded by the Chinese government and public institutions. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhuang L et al. Ann Hepatol. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1016/j.aohep.2020.09.012.

Patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 3 infection have shown resistance to direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatments. However, a meta-analysis of 34 research reports found that DAA combo treatment can be effective in achieving sustained virologic response (SVR) in patients with HCV genotype 3, according to a study published online in Annals of Hepatology.

This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of four regimens: sofosbuvir (SOF)/daclatasvir (DCV) with or without ribavirin (RBV); SOF/velpatasvir (VEL) with or without RBV; SOF/VEL/voxilaprevir (VOX);and glecaprevir (GLE)/pibrentasvir (PIB) in the treatment of HCV genotype 3–infected patients in real-world situations, according to Liwei Zhuang, of Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, and colleagues.

A total of 34 studies, comprising 7,328 patients from 22 countries, met the inclusion criteria and formed the basis of the analysis.
 

Promising results

The pooled SVR rate after 12 or 24 weeks of treatment for the four regimens was 92.1%.

For each regimen, the SVR rate was 91.2% in patients treated with SOF/DCV with or without RBV; 95.1% in patients treated with SOF/VEL with or without RBV; 85.0% in patients treated with SOF/VEL/VOX; and 98.5% in patients treated with GLE/PIB.

In addition, the pooled SVR rate of the four regimens was 95.2% in patients without cirrhosis and 89.4% in patients with cirrhosis, and the pooled SVR rate was 94.4% in treatment-naive patients and 88.0% in treatment-experienced patients. All results were within 95% confidence intervals.

The researchers pointed out that their meta-analysis had limitations. “We think that no strong conclusions can be drawn due to high heterogeneity in four DAA regimens administration in real-world setting from 22 countries, as well as small numbers of patients treated with SOF + VEL + VOX and GLE + PIB. More studies are needed in the future in order to better analyze the antiviral effectiveness of DAAs in GT3 HCV patients in real-world studies,” they authors stated.

However, they also concluded that “the antiviral effectiveness of treatment regimens for HCV-GT3 [genotype 3] infection, including SOF + DCV ± RBV, SOF + VEL ± RBV, GLE + PIB, and SOF + VEL + VOX, was good. The SVR rate of GLE + PIB was higher, and the treatment duration was shorter than other regimens.”

The study was funded by the Chinese government and public institutions. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhuang L et al. Ann Hepatol. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1016/j.aohep.2020.09.012.

Patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 3 infection have shown resistance to direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatments. However, a meta-analysis of 34 research reports found that DAA combo treatment can be effective in achieving sustained virologic response (SVR) in patients with HCV genotype 3, according to a study published online in Annals of Hepatology.

This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of four regimens: sofosbuvir (SOF)/daclatasvir (DCV) with or without ribavirin (RBV); SOF/velpatasvir (VEL) with or without RBV; SOF/VEL/voxilaprevir (VOX);and glecaprevir (GLE)/pibrentasvir (PIB) in the treatment of HCV genotype 3–infected patients in real-world situations, according to Liwei Zhuang, of Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, and colleagues.

A total of 34 studies, comprising 7,328 patients from 22 countries, met the inclusion criteria and formed the basis of the analysis.
 

Promising results

The pooled SVR rate after 12 or 24 weeks of treatment for the four regimens was 92.1%.

For each regimen, the SVR rate was 91.2% in patients treated with SOF/DCV with or without RBV; 95.1% in patients treated with SOF/VEL with or without RBV; 85.0% in patients treated with SOF/VEL/VOX; and 98.5% in patients treated with GLE/PIB.

In addition, the pooled SVR rate of the four regimens was 95.2% in patients without cirrhosis and 89.4% in patients with cirrhosis, and the pooled SVR rate was 94.4% in treatment-naive patients and 88.0% in treatment-experienced patients. All results were within 95% confidence intervals.

The researchers pointed out that their meta-analysis had limitations. “We think that no strong conclusions can be drawn due to high heterogeneity in four DAA regimens administration in real-world setting from 22 countries, as well as small numbers of patients treated with SOF + VEL + VOX and GLE + PIB. More studies are needed in the future in order to better analyze the antiviral effectiveness of DAAs in GT3 HCV patients in real-world studies,” they authors stated.

However, they also concluded that “the antiviral effectiveness of treatment regimens for HCV-GT3 [genotype 3] infection, including SOF + DCV ± RBV, SOF + VEL ± RBV, GLE + PIB, and SOF + VEL + VOX, was good. The SVR rate of GLE + PIB was higher, and the treatment duration was shorter than other regimens.”

The study was funded by the Chinese government and public institutions. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhuang L et al. Ann Hepatol. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1016/j.aohep.2020.09.012.

References 

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Colorectal cancer: screening [draft recommendation statement]. https://uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/draft-recommendation/colorectal-cancer-screening3. Published October 27, 2020. Accessed November 23, 2020.

References 

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Colorectal cancer: screening [draft recommendation statement]. https://uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/draft-recommendation/colorectal-cancer-screening3. Published October 27, 2020. Accessed November 23, 2020.

References 

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Colorectal cancer: screening [draft recommendation statement]. https://uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/draft-recommendation/colorectal-cancer-screening3. Published October 27, 2020. Accessed November 23, 2020.

Dermoscopy showed polylobular, whitish yellow, amorphous structures at the center of the lesion surrounded by a crown of vessels (Figure 1). Histopathology revealed hyperplastic crateriform lesions containing large eosinophilic intracytoplasmic inclusion bodies within keratinocytes (Figure 2). At follow-up 2 weeks after the biopsy, the patient presented with approximately 20 more reddish papules of varying sizes on the abdomen and back that presented as dome-shaped papules and had a typical umbilicated center. The clinical manifestations, dermoscopy, and pathology findings were consistent with molluscum contagiosum (MC).

Molluscum contagiosum was first described in 1814. It is a benign cutaneous infectious disease caused by a double-stranded DNA virus of the poxvirus family. Molluscum contagiosum lesions usually manifest clinically as dome-shaped, flesh-colored or translucent, umbilicated papules measuring 1 to 5 mm in diameter that are commonly distributed over the face, trunk, and extremities and usually are self-limiting.¹

Giant MC is rare and can be seen either in patients on immunosuppressive therapy or in those with diseases that can cause immunosuppression, such as human immunodeficiency virus, leukemia, atopic dermatitis, Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, and sarcoidosis. In these instances, MC often is greater than 1 cm in diameter. Atypical variants may have an eczematous presentation or a lesion with secondary abscess formation and also can be spread widely over the body.² Due to these atypical appearances and large dimensions in immunocompromised patients, other dermatologic diseases should be considered in the differential diagnosis, such as basal cell carcinoma, keratoacanthoma, squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous horn, cutaneous cryptococcosis, histoplasmosis, and xanthomatosis.³

In our patient, the differential diagnosis included keratoacanthoma, which may present as a solitary, discrete, round to oval, flesh-colored, umbilicated nodule with a central keratin-filled crater and has a rapid clinical evolution, usually regressing within 4 to 6 months.

Squamous cell carcinoma may appear as scaly red patches, open sores, warts, or elevated growths with a central depression and may crust or bleed. Basal cell carcinoma typically may appear as a dome-shaped skin nodule with visible blood vessels or sometimes presents as a red patch similar to eczema. Xanthomatosis often appears as yellow to orange, mostly asymptomatic, supple patches or plaques, usually with sharp and distinctive edges.

Ancillary diagnostic modalities such as dermoscopy may be used to improve diagnostic accuracy. The best known capillaroscopic feature of MC is the peripheral crown of vessels in a radial distribution. A study of 258 MC lesions highlighted that crown and crown plus radial arrangements are the most common vascular structure patterns under dermoscopy. In addition, polylobular amorphous white structures in the center of the lesions tend to be a feature of larger MC papules.⁴ Histologically, MC shows lobulated crateriform lesions, thickening of the epidermis into the dermis, and the typical appearance of large eosinophilic intracytoplasmic inclusion bodies within keratinocytes.⁵

There are several treatment options available for MC. Common modalities include liquid nitrogen cryospray, curettage, and electrocauterization. In immunocompromised patients, MC lesions usually are resistant to ordinary therapy. The efficacy of topical agents such as imiquimod, which can induce high levels of IFN-α and other cytokines, has been demonstrated in these patients.⁶ Cidofovir, a nucleoside analog that has potent antiviral properties, also can be included as a therapeutic option.³ Our patient’s largest MC lesion was treated with surgical excision, the 2 large lesions on the left side of the chest with cryotherapy, and the other small lesions with curettage.

Dermoscopy showed polylobular, whitish yellow, amorphous structures at the center of the lesion surrounded by a crown of vessels (Figure 1). Histopathology revealed hyperplastic crateriform lesions containing large eosinophilic intracytoplasmic inclusion bodies within keratinocytes (Figure 2). At follow-up 2 weeks after the biopsy, the patient presented with approximately 20 more reddish papules of varying sizes on the abdomen and back that presented as dome-shaped papules and had a typical umbilicated center. The clinical manifestations, dermoscopy, and pathology findings were consistent with molluscum contagiosum (MC).

Molluscum contagiosum was first described in 1814. It is a benign cutaneous infectious disease caused by a double-stranded DNA virus of the poxvirus family. Molluscum contagiosum lesions usually manifest clinically as dome-shaped, flesh-colored or translucent, umbilicated papules measuring 1 to 5 mm in diameter that are commonly distributed over the face, trunk, and extremities and usually are self-limiting.¹

Giant MC is rare and can be seen either in patients on immunosuppressive therapy or in those with diseases that can cause immunosuppression, such as human immunodeficiency virus, leukemia, atopic dermatitis, Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, and sarcoidosis. In these instances, MC often is greater than 1 cm in diameter. Atypical variants may have an eczematous presentation or a lesion with secondary abscess formation and also can be spread widely over the body.² Due to these atypical appearances and large dimensions in immunocompromised patients, other dermatologic diseases should be considered in the differential diagnosis, such as basal cell carcinoma, keratoacanthoma, squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous horn, cutaneous cryptococcosis, histoplasmosis, and xanthomatosis.³

In our patient, the differential diagnosis included keratoacanthoma, which may present as a solitary, discrete, round to oval, flesh-colored, umbilicated nodule with a central keratin-filled crater and has a rapid clinical evolution, usually regressing within 4 to 6 months.

Squamous cell carcinoma may appear as scaly red patches, open sores, warts, or elevated growths with a central depression and may crust or bleed. Basal cell carcinoma typically may appear as a dome-shaped skin nodule with visible blood vessels or sometimes presents as a red patch similar to eczema. Xanthomatosis often appears as yellow to orange, mostly asymptomatic, supple patches or plaques, usually with sharp and distinctive edges.

Ancillary diagnostic modalities such as dermoscopy may be used to improve diagnostic accuracy. The best known capillaroscopic feature of MC is the peripheral crown of vessels in a radial distribution. A study of 258 MC lesions highlighted that crown and crown plus radial arrangements are the most common vascular structure patterns under dermoscopy. In addition, polylobular amorphous white structures in the center of the lesions tend to be a feature of larger MC papules.⁴ Histologically, MC shows lobulated crateriform lesions, thickening of the epidermis into the dermis, and the typical appearance of large eosinophilic intracytoplasmic inclusion bodies within keratinocytes.⁵

There are several treatment options available for MC. Common modalities include liquid nitrogen cryospray, curettage, and electrocauterization. In immunocompromised patients, MC lesions usually are resistant to ordinary therapy. The efficacy of topical agents such as imiquimod, which can induce high levels of IFN-α and other cytokines, has been demonstrated in these patients.⁶ Cidofovir, a nucleoside analog that has potent antiviral properties, also can be included as a therapeutic option.³ Our patient’s largest MC lesion was treated with surgical excision, the 2 large lesions on the left side of the chest with cryotherapy, and the other small lesions with curettage.

Dermoscopy showed polylobular, whitish yellow, amorphous structures at the center of the lesion surrounded by a crown of vessels (Figure 1). Histopathology revealed hyperplastic crateriform lesions containing large eosinophilic intracytoplasmic inclusion bodies within keratinocytes (Figure 2). At follow-up 2 weeks after the biopsy, the patient presented with approximately 20 more reddish papules of varying sizes on the abdomen and back that presented as dome-shaped papules and had a typical umbilicated center. The clinical manifestations, dermoscopy, and pathology findings were consistent with molluscum contagiosum (MC).

Molluscum contagiosum was first described in 1814. It is a benign cutaneous infectious disease caused by a double-stranded DNA virus of the poxvirus family. Molluscum contagiosum lesions usually manifest clinically as dome-shaped, flesh-colored or translucent, umbilicated papules measuring 1 to 5 mm in diameter that are commonly distributed over the face, trunk, and extremities and usually are self-limiting.¹

Giant MC is rare and can be seen either in patients on immunosuppressive therapy or in those with diseases that can cause immunosuppression, such as human immunodeficiency virus, leukemia, atopic dermatitis, Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, and sarcoidosis. In these instances, MC often is greater than 1 cm in diameter. Atypical variants may have an eczematous presentation or a lesion with secondary abscess formation and also can be spread widely over the body.² Due to these atypical appearances and large dimensions in immunocompromised patients, other dermatologic diseases should be considered in the differential diagnosis, such as basal cell carcinoma, keratoacanthoma, squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous horn, cutaneous cryptococcosis, histoplasmosis, and xanthomatosis.³

In our patient, the differential diagnosis included keratoacanthoma, which may present as a solitary, discrete, round to oval, flesh-colored, umbilicated nodule with a central keratin-filled crater and has a rapid clinical evolution, usually regressing within 4 to 6 months.

Squamous cell carcinoma may appear as scaly red patches, open sores, warts, or elevated growths with a central depression and may crust or bleed. Basal cell carcinoma typically may appear as a dome-shaped skin nodule with visible blood vessels or sometimes presents as a red patch similar to eczema. Xanthomatosis often appears as yellow to orange, mostly asymptomatic, supple patches or plaques, usually with sharp and distinctive edges.

Ancillary diagnostic modalities such as dermoscopy may be used to improve diagnostic accuracy. The best known capillaroscopic feature of MC is the peripheral crown of vessels in a radial distribution. A study of 258 MC lesions highlighted that crown and crown plus radial arrangements are the most common vascular structure patterns under dermoscopy. In addition, polylobular amorphous white structures in the center of the lesions tend to be a feature of larger MC papules.⁴ Histologically, MC shows lobulated crateriform lesions, thickening of the epidermis into the dermis, and the typical appearance of large eosinophilic intracytoplasmic inclusion bodies within keratinocytes.⁵

There are several treatment options available for MC. Common modalities include liquid nitrogen cryospray, curettage, and electrocauterization. In immunocompromised patients, MC lesions usually are resistant to ordinary therapy. The efficacy of topical agents such as imiquimod, which can induce high levels of IFN-α and other cytokines, has been demonstrated in these patients.⁶ Cidofovir, a nucleoside analog that has potent antiviral properties, also can be included as a therapeutic option.³ Our patient’s largest MC lesion was treated with surgical excision, the 2 large lesions on the left side of the chest with cryotherapy, and the other small lesions with curettage.

Since 2012, when the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) began linking financial penalties to hospitals with excessive readmissions for adult patients, researchers have questioned the extent to which pediatric readmissions can be used as a reliable quality measure. Compared with readmissions among adult patients, readmissions among pediatric patients are relatively uncommon. Furthermore, few (approximately 2%) qualify as potentially preventable, and pediatric readmission rates remain largely unchanged despite targeted attempts to prevent reutilization.^1,2 Nonetheless, state Medicaid agencies have continued to reduce reimbursement for hospitals based on available readmissions metrics, most commonly the Potentially Preventable Readmissions (PPR) algorithm.¹

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Auger et al³ performed a retrospective study to explore four existing metrics of pediatric hospital readmissions for their ability to identify preventable and unplanned readmissions. Investigators examined 30-day readmissions (n = 1,125) from 2014-2016 across multiple subspecialties, and classified readmissions by their preventability and unplanned status with use of a validated chart abstraction tool. Using the results of chart abstraction as the gold standard, investigators calculated the sensitivity and specificity, as well as estimated the positive and negative predictive values, of each readmissions metric. Auger and colleagues found that none of the four readmissions metrics could reliably assess preventability, and that only one metric reliably predicted unplanned hospital readmissions. Specifically, the commonly used PPR algorithm was estimated to have a positive predictive value of 13.0%-35.5% across a prevalence range of 10%-30%. This means that in a hospital where 10% of readmissions are truly preventable, the PPR will be wrong approximately 87% of the time. Tying payments to this metric is difficult to justify.

The authors highlighted the policy implications of the PPR falling short in its ability to identify preventable and unplanned pediatric readmissions. A good quality measure should be consistently reliable, and neither the PPR nor other measures studied meets this benchmark. Yet the findings lead to a broader conclusion: if most pediatric readmissions are not preventable, if there is no reliable way of measuring preventability, and if we have not demonstrated the ability to change patient trajectories away from reutilization, then perhaps the sun has set on using readmissions as a comprehensive quality measure for hospital-based care.

So how, then, should the hospital-to-home transition be evaluated? The paradigm of pediatric value of care is shifting to incorporate family-centered perspectives into consideration of quality measures.² There has to be a balance between healthcare costs and outcomes that affect families; measures should take into account issues such as patient and caregiver anxiety and time away from work.² Moreover, because social determinants of health and medical complexity strongly influence readmission rates,^4,5 focus should be placed on redirecting resources toward patients and families with significant medical, social, and financial needs as they transition home from the hospital. While measures of healthcare equity are currently lacking, the overall quality and equity of pediatric care transitions could be enhanced by looking beyond the narrow lens of readmission rates to incorporate actual needs assessments of families.

In summary, Auger and colleagues identified deficits in existing readmission metrics—but creating a solution that is meaningful to all stakeholders will be more complex than simply identifying a better metric. Family-centered quality metrics show promise in creating value in pediatric care within an equitable health system, but long-term evaluation of these metrics is necessary.

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Since 2012, when the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) began linking financial penalties to hospitals with excessive readmissions for adult patients, researchers have questioned the extent to which pediatric readmissions can be used as a reliable quality measure. Compared with readmissions among adult patients, readmissions among pediatric patients are relatively uncommon. Furthermore, few (approximately 2%) qualify as potentially preventable, and pediatric readmission rates remain largely unchanged despite targeted attempts to prevent reutilization.^1,2 Nonetheless, state Medicaid agencies have continued to reduce reimbursement for hospitals based on available readmissions metrics, most commonly the Potentially Preventable Readmissions (PPR) algorithm.¹

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Auger et al³ performed a retrospective study to explore four existing metrics of pediatric hospital readmissions for their ability to identify preventable and unplanned readmissions. Investigators examined 30-day readmissions (n = 1,125) from 2014-2016 across multiple subspecialties, and classified readmissions by their preventability and unplanned status with use of a validated chart abstraction tool. Using the results of chart abstraction as the gold standard, investigators calculated the sensitivity and specificity, as well as estimated the positive and negative predictive values, of each readmissions metric. Auger and colleagues found that none of the four readmissions metrics could reliably assess preventability, and that only one metric reliably predicted unplanned hospital readmissions. Specifically, the commonly used PPR algorithm was estimated to have a positive predictive value of 13.0%-35.5% across a prevalence range of 10%-30%. This means that in a hospital where 10% of readmissions are truly preventable, the PPR will be wrong approximately 87% of the time. Tying payments to this metric is difficult to justify.

The authors highlighted the policy implications of the PPR falling short in its ability to identify preventable and unplanned pediatric readmissions. A good quality measure should be consistently reliable, and neither the PPR nor other measures studied meets this benchmark. Yet the findings lead to a broader conclusion: if most pediatric readmissions are not preventable, if there is no reliable way of measuring preventability, and if we have not demonstrated the ability to change patient trajectories away from reutilization, then perhaps the sun has set on using readmissions as a comprehensive quality measure for hospital-based care.

So how, then, should the hospital-to-home transition be evaluated? The paradigm of pediatric value of care is shifting to incorporate family-centered perspectives into consideration of quality measures.² There has to be a balance between healthcare costs and outcomes that affect families; measures should take into account issues such as patient and caregiver anxiety and time away from work.² Moreover, because social determinants of health and medical complexity strongly influence readmission rates,^4,5 focus should be placed on redirecting resources toward patients and families with significant medical, social, and financial needs as they transition home from the hospital. While measures of healthcare equity are currently lacking, the overall quality and equity of pediatric care transitions could be enhanced by looking beyond the narrow lens of readmission rates to incorporate actual needs assessments of families.

In summary, Auger and colleagues identified deficits in existing readmission metrics—but creating a solution that is meaningful to all stakeholders will be more complex than simply identifying a better metric. Family-centered quality metrics show promise in creating value in pediatric care within an equitable health system, but long-term evaluation of these metrics is necessary.

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Since 2012, when the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) began linking financial penalties to hospitals with excessive readmissions for adult patients, researchers have questioned the extent to which pediatric readmissions can be used as a reliable quality measure. Compared with readmissions among adult patients, readmissions among pediatric patients are relatively uncommon. Furthermore, few (approximately 2%) qualify as potentially preventable, and pediatric readmission rates remain largely unchanged despite targeted attempts to prevent reutilization.^1,2 Nonetheless, state Medicaid agencies have continued to reduce reimbursement for hospitals based on available readmissions metrics, most commonly the Potentially Preventable Readmissions (PPR) algorithm.¹

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Auger et al³ performed a retrospective study to explore four existing metrics of pediatric hospital readmissions for their ability to identify preventable and unplanned readmissions. Investigators examined 30-day readmissions (n = 1,125) from 2014-2016 across multiple subspecialties, and classified readmissions by their preventability and unplanned status with use of a validated chart abstraction tool. Using the results of chart abstraction as the gold standard, investigators calculated the sensitivity and specificity, as well as estimated the positive and negative predictive values, of each readmissions metric. Auger and colleagues found that none of the four readmissions metrics could reliably assess preventability, and that only one metric reliably predicted unplanned hospital readmissions. Specifically, the commonly used PPR algorithm was estimated to have a positive predictive value of 13.0%-35.5% across a prevalence range of 10%-30%. This means that in a hospital where 10% of readmissions are truly preventable, the PPR will be wrong approximately 87% of the time. Tying payments to this metric is difficult to justify.

The authors highlighted the policy implications of the PPR falling short in its ability to identify preventable and unplanned pediatric readmissions. A good quality measure should be consistently reliable, and neither the PPR nor other measures studied meets this benchmark. Yet the findings lead to a broader conclusion: if most pediatric readmissions are not preventable, if there is no reliable way of measuring preventability, and if we have not demonstrated the ability to change patient trajectories away from reutilization, then perhaps the sun has set on using readmissions as a comprehensive quality measure for hospital-based care.

So how, then, should the hospital-to-home transition be evaluated? The paradigm of pediatric value of care is shifting to incorporate family-centered perspectives into consideration of quality measures.² There has to be a balance between healthcare costs and outcomes that affect families; measures should take into account issues such as patient and caregiver anxiety and time away from work.² Moreover, because social determinants of health and medical complexity strongly influence readmission rates,^4,5 focus should be placed on redirecting resources toward patients and families with significant medical, social, and financial needs as they transition home from the hospital. While measures of healthcare equity are currently lacking, the overall quality and equity of pediatric care transitions could be enhanced by looking beyond the narrow lens of readmission rates to incorporate actual needs assessments of families.

In summary, Auger and colleagues identified deficits in existing readmission metrics—but creating a solution that is meaningful to all stakeholders will be more complex than simply identifying a better metric. Family-centered quality metrics show promise in creating value in pediatric care within an equitable health system, but long-term evaluation of these metrics is necessary.

The authors have nothing to disclose.