Wildfires are on the move in California and communities from the Bay Area to Los Angeles County are once again coping with evacuation, possible destruction of homes, and health concerns related to poor air quality and smoke.

What can doctors tell their patients with cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions about the risks of smoke from wildfires? How can patients and their loved ones monitor air quality and protect themselves on smoky days that reach unhealthy levels?

EPA resources online

AirNow, a website managed by the Environmental Protection Agency, provides a variety of resources for the public and for health providers, including links to online tutorials, printable health fact sheets, and the newly updated document “Wildfire Smoke: Guide for Public Health Officials 2019.” When wildfire smoke generates an Air Quality Index (AQI) from 101-150, at-risk subgroups like people with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or heart disease should take precautions.

US Environmental Protection Agency

“An AQI of 151-200 is unhealthy for everyone, and an AQI above 200 is very unhealthy,” John R. Balmes, MD, a pulmonologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and an expert on the respiratory and cardiovascular effects of air pollutants, said in an interview. “That does not mean that everybody is going to die, though. You’re going to have some symptoms of scratchy throat, and you may cough once or twice an hour [from exposure to wildfire smoke], but people who don’t have any preexisting health problems are probably going to be fine and don’t necessarily have to wear an N95 mask. People should wear one if they need to feel comfortable.”

Masks – How much protection?

Wayne Cascio, MD, who directs the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, notes that some public health officials don’t recommend wearing N95 masks during wildfire smoke events. “There’s a lot of concern that people won’t use them correctly and will therefore feel like they’re protected and will spend more time outdoors than they should and still not get the benefit,” he said. “The masks also pose a challenge for children and for people with severe asthma and COPD.”

Masks also have to fit properly, which can be problematic for kids, added Dr. Balmes, one of the authors of “Wildfires Disaster Guidance: Tips for Staying Healthy During Wildfires” (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199[2]:3-4).

“Even the small versions don’t necessarily fit kids well, so they’re not recommended for kids,” he said. “It doesn’t mean a kid couldn’t wear them, but it’s not officially recommended. The actual physiologic work of breathing isn’t much increased by using the N95 mask, but if you’re already struggling to get your breath, or experience dyspnea, then it might be hard to wear one. People with milder COPD can wear an N95 mask just like people with mild asthma if they have to go out.”

The EPA published a tip sheet about where and when to use an N95 or P100 mask, with warnings about the limited protection these devices offer, especially if not used correctly. Most masks do not protect the wearer from harmful gases that can be in wildfire smoke.

Ventilation systems

The EPA also recommends that people with more severe disease should stay indoors and avoid using air conditioning units that only draw in air from the outside or do not have a recirculating option. “If you have to bring in outside air because that’s how your system works, you should have a MERV 13 or better filter to filter out the fine particles,” Dr. Balmes said. “Not every ventilation system can handle it, but most can. That will help the house.”

Dr. Cascio pointed out that the instruction to close all windows and doors is a difficult proposition for people who live in states with moderate weather climates such as Montana and Colorado, where few homes have central air conditioning. “The treatment may be worse than the disease in this case, because it may exacerbate heat stress,” he said. “Try to find a place that has cleaner air. That might be a public building, a school, a fitness center, or a library. Yet we don’t know a lot about whether those areas are cleaner or not. That is currently the subject of some research on our part.”

Traveling away from an area affected by wildfire smoke to ride out the conditions is one option, but that can backfire. One weekend when smoke from the 2008 North Carolina peat fire was particularly troublesome, Dr. Cascio and his family drove about 60 miles west of Greenville to the town of Zebulon, where a minor league baseball game was being played and the air quality was good.

“My thought was to get the family to a better environment for at least a few hours,” Dr. Cascio recalled. “When we arrived in Zebulon the air quality was good as advertised. However, the direction of the wind shifted and the smoke started to move due west and within a short time you could barely see the players on the field. This experience also pointed out one of the lessons of wildfire smoke. That is, in the short term, it is sometimes difficult to predict where it will be present because of the nature of changes in weather and wind.”

Consumer tools to monitor air quality

Colleen E. Reid, PhD, of the department of geography at the University of Colorado, Boulder, an expert on the impact of wildfire smoke on human health, has observed in increase in consumer action to counter smoke inhalation during wildfire events. She said that consumers are buying personal laser particle counters, like the ones made by PurpleAir, to provide a real-time assessment of air quality.

“There is a lot of error with these smaller, cheaper monitors, but I think they give you a sense of trends over time,” Dr. Reid said. “People are trying to figure out how we can work with this sort of real-time data along with the high-quality EPA monitors. If everybody has their own monitor, or ways to better calibrate them to the high-quality data, that would be amazing. Researchers are trying to see how they can use that data to inform our understanding of the spatial and temporal patterning of air pollution.”

The EPA’s Smoke Sense app also holds promise. Characterized on its website as “a citizen science project,” the study uses a free mobile app to engage people living in affected communities to monitor their air quality and their cardiorespiratory symptoms. “Through engagement over time, you learn what the effects on your body are and what the expected effects are, so you can recognize the hazards and change the behavior when you’re experiencing it,” said Ana G. Rappold, PhD, who is the app’s principal investigator at the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. One component of the app is time of last measurement of fine particulate matter and ozone based on the user’s location. Another is a module called Be Smoke Smart, which tests the user’s knowledge of wildfire smoke exposure. For example, one question is: “How likely are you to reduce your exposure on an Orange AQI alert day?” (which indicates that sensitive populations may experience health effects).

“Through gamification, they’re engaging with the issue,” Dr. Rappold said. “Then they learn about what others are reporting. In that part we also study how different messages change individuals’ perspective on how likely they are to make a change the next time they’re impacted by smoke.”

[email protected]

Wildfires are on the move in California and communities from the Bay Area to Los Angeles County are once again coping with evacuation, possible destruction of homes, and health concerns related to poor air quality and smoke.

What can doctors tell their patients with cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions about the risks of smoke from wildfires? How can patients and their loved ones monitor air quality and protect themselves on smoky days that reach unhealthy levels?

EPA resources online

AirNow, a website managed by the Environmental Protection Agency, provides a variety of resources for the public and for health providers, including links to online tutorials, printable health fact sheets, and the newly updated document “Wildfire Smoke: Guide for Public Health Officials 2019.” When wildfire smoke generates an Air Quality Index (AQI) from 101-150, at-risk subgroups like people with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or heart disease should take precautions.

US Environmental Protection Agency

“An AQI of 151-200 is unhealthy for everyone, and an AQI above 200 is very unhealthy,” John R. Balmes, MD, a pulmonologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and an expert on the respiratory and cardiovascular effects of air pollutants, said in an interview. “That does not mean that everybody is going to die, though. You’re going to have some symptoms of scratchy throat, and you may cough once or twice an hour [from exposure to wildfire smoke], but people who don’t have any preexisting health problems are probably going to be fine and don’t necessarily have to wear an N95 mask. People should wear one if they need to feel comfortable.”

Masks – How much protection?

Wayne Cascio, MD, who directs the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, notes that some public health officials don’t recommend wearing N95 masks during wildfire smoke events. “There’s a lot of concern that people won’t use them correctly and will therefore feel like they’re protected and will spend more time outdoors than they should and still not get the benefit,” he said. “The masks also pose a challenge for children and for people with severe asthma and COPD.”

Masks also have to fit properly, which can be problematic for kids, added Dr. Balmes, one of the authors of “Wildfires Disaster Guidance: Tips for Staying Healthy During Wildfires” (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199[2]:3-4).

“Even the small versions don’t necessarily fit kids well, so they’re not recommended for kids,” he said. “It doesn’t mean a kid couldn’t wear them, but it’s not officially recommended. The actual physiologic work of breathing isn’t much increased by using the N95 mask, but if you’re already struggling to get your breath, or experience dyspnea, then it might be hard to wear one. People with milder COPD can wear an N95 mask just like people with mild asthma if they have to go out.”

The EPA published a tip sheet about where and when to use an N95 or P100 mask, with warnings about the limited protection these devices offer, especially if not used correctly. Most masks do not protect the wearer from harmful gases that can be in wildfire smoke.

Ventilation systems

The EPA also recommends that people with more severe disease should stay indoors and avoid using air conditioning units that only draw in air from the outside or do not have a recirculating option. “If you have to bring in outside air because that’s how your system works, you should have a MERV 13 or better filter to filter out the fine particles,” Dr. Balmes said. “Not every ventilation system can handle it, but most can. That will help the house.”

Dr. Cascio pointed out that the instruction to close all windows and doors is a difficult proposition for people who live in states with moderate weather climates such as Montana and Colorado, where few homes have central air conditioning. “The treatment may be worse than the disease in this case, because it may exacerbate heat stress,” he said. “Try to find a place that has cleaner air. That might be a public building, a school, a fitness center, or a library. Yet we don’t know a lot about whether those areas are cleaner or not. That is currently the subject of some research on our part.”

Traveling away from an area affected by wildfire smoke to ride out the conditions is one option, but that can backfire. One weekend when smoke from the 2008 North Carolina peat fire was particularly troublesome, Dr. Cascio and his family drove about 60 miles west of Greenville to the town of Zebulon, where a minor league baseball game was being played and the air quality was good.

“My thought was to get the family to a better environment for at least a few hours,” Dr. Cascio recalled. “When we arrived in Zebulon the air quality was good as advertised. However, the direction of the wind shifted and the smoke started to move due west and within a short time you could barely see the players on the field. This experience also pointed out one of the lessons of wildfire smoke. That is, in the short term, it is sometimes difficult to predict where it will be present because of the nature of changes in weather and wind.”

Consumer tools to monitor air quality

Colleen E. Reid, PhD, of the department of geography at the University of Colorado, Boulder, an expert on the impact of wildfire smoke on human health, has observed in increase in consumer action to counter smoke inhalation during wildfire events. She said that consumers are buying personal laser particle counters, like the ones made by PurpleAir, to provide a real-time assessment of air quality.

“There is a lot of error with these smaller, cheaper monitors, but I think they give you a sense of trends over time,” Dr. Reid said. “People are trying to figure out how we can work with this sort of real-time data along with the high-quality EPA monitors. If everybody has their own monitor, or ways to better calibrate them to the high-quality data, that would be amazing. Researchers are trying to see how they can use that data to inform our understanding of the spatial and temporal patterning of air pollution.”

The EPA’s Smoke Sense app also holds promise. Characterized on its website as “a citizen science project,” the study uses a free mobile app to engage people living in affected communities to monitor their air quality and their cardiorespiratory symptoms. “Through engagement over time, you learn what the effects on your body are and what the expected effects are, so you can recognize the hazards and change the behavior when you’re experiencing it,” said Ana G. Rappold, PhD, who is the app’s principal investigator at the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. One component of the app is time of last measurement of fine particulate matter and ozone based on the user’s location. Another is a module called Be Smoke Smart, which tests the user’s knowledge of wildfire smoke exposure. For example, one question is: “How likely are you to reduce your exposure on an Orange AQI alert day?” (which indicates that sensitive populations may experience health effects).

“Through gamification, they’re engaging with the issue,” Dr. Rappold said. “Then they learn about what others are reporting. In that part we also study how different messages change individuals’ perspective on how likely they are to make a change the next time they’re impacted by smoke.”

[email protected]

Wildfires are on the move in California and communities from the Bay Area to Los Angeles County are once again coping with evacuation, possible destruction of homes, and health concerns related to poor air quality and smoke.

What can doctors tell their patients with cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions about the risks of smoke from wildfires? How can patients and their loved ones monitor air quality and protect themselves on smoky days that reach unhealthy levels?

EPA resources online

AirNow, a website managed by the Environmental Protection Agency, provides a variety of resources for the public and for health providers, including links to online tutorials, printable health fact sheets, and the newly updated document “Wildfire Smoke: Guide for Public Health Officials 2019.” When wildfire smoke generates an Air Quality Index (AQI) from 101-150, at-risk subgroups like people with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or heart disease should take precautions.

US Environmental Protection Agency

“An AQI of 151-200 is unhealthy for everyone, and an AQI above 200 is very unhealthy,” John R. Balmes, MD, a pulmonologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and an expert on the respiratory and cardiovascular effects of air pollutants, said in an interview. “That does not mean that everybody is going to die, though. You’re going to have some symptoms of scratchy throat, and you may cough once or twice an hour [from exposure to wildfire smoke], but people who don’t have any preexisting health problems are probably going to be fine and don’t necessarily have to wear an N95 mask. People should wear one if they need to feel comfortable.”

Masks – How much protection?

Wayne Cascio, MD, who directs the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, notes that some public health officials don’t recommend wearing N95 masks during wildfire smoke events. “There’s a lot of concern that people won’t use them correctly and will therefore feel like they’re protected and will spend more time outdoors than they should and still not get the benefit,” he said. “The masks also pose a challenge for children and for people with severe asthma and COPD.”

Masks also have to fit properly, which can be problematic for kids, added Dr. Balmes, one of the authors of “Wildfires Disaster Guidance: Tips for Staying Healthy During Wildfires” (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199[2]:3-4).

“Even the small versions don’t necessarily fit kids well, so they’re not recommended for kids,” he said. “It doesn’t mean a kid couldn’t wear them, but it’s not officially recommended. The actual physiologic work of breathing isn’t much increased by using the N95 mask, but if you’re already struggling to get your breath, or experience dyspnea, then it might be hard to wear one. People with milder COPD can wear an N95 mask just like people with mild asthma if they have to go out.”

The EPA published a tip sheet about where and when to use an N95 or P100 mask, with warnings about the limited protection these devices offer, especially if not used correctly. Most masks do not protect the wearer from harmful gases that can be in wildfire smoke.

Ventilation systems

The EPA also recommends that people with more severe disease should stay indoors and avoid using air conditioning units that only draw in air from the outside or do not have a recirculating option. “If you have to bring in outside air because that’s how your system works, you should have a MERV 13 or better filter to filter out the fine particles,” Dr. Balmes said. “Not every ventilation system can handle it, but most can. That will help the house.”

Dr. Cascio pointed out that the instruction to close all windows and doors is a difficult proposition for people who live in states with moderate weather climates such as Montana and Colorado, where few homes have central air conditioning. “The treatment may be worse than the disease in this case, because it may exacerbate heat stress,” he said. “Try to find a place that has cleaner air. That might be a public building, a school, a fitness center, or a library. Yet we don’t know a lot about whether those areas are cleaner or not. That is currently the subject of some research on our part.”

Traveling away from an area affected by wildfire smoke to ride out the conditions is one option, but that can backfire. One weekend when smoke from the 2008 North Carolina peat fire was particularly troublesome, Dr. Cascio and his family drove about 60 miles west of Greenville to the town of Zebulon, where a minor league baseball game was being played and the air quality was good.

“My thought was to get the family to a better environment for at least a few hours,” Dr. Cascio recalled. “When we arrived in Zebulon the air quality was good as advertised. However, the direction of the wind shifted and the smoke started to move due west and within a short time you could barely see the players on the field. This experience also pointed out one of the lessons of wildfire smoke. That is, in the short term, it is sometimes difficult to predict where it will be present because of the nature of changes in weather and wind.”

Consumer tools to monitor air quality

Colleen E. Reid, PhD, of the department of geography at the University of Colorado, Boulder, an expert on the impact of wildfire smoke on human health, has observed in increase in consumer action to counter smoke inhalation during wildfire events. She said that consumers are buying personal laser particle counters, like the ones made by PurpleAir, to provide a real-time assessment of air quality.

“There is a lot of error with these smaller, cheaper monitors, but I think they give you a sense of trends over time,” Dr. Reid said. “People are trying to figure out how we can work with this sort of real-time data along with the high-quality EPA monitors. If everybody has their own monitor, or ways to better calibrate them to the high-quality data, that would be amazing. Researchers are trying to see how they can use that data to inform our understanding of the spatial and temporal patterning of air pollution.”

The EPA’s Smoke Sense app also holds promise. Characterized on its website as “a citizen science project,” the study uses a free mobile app to engage people living in affected communities to monitor their air quality and their cardiorespiratory symptoms. “Through engagement over time, you learn what the effects on your body are and what the expected effects are, so you can recognize the hazards and change the behavior when you’re experiencing it,” said Ana G. Rappold, PhD, who is the app’s principal investigator at the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. One component of the app is time of last measurement of fine particulate matter and ozone based on the user’s location. Another is a module called Be Smoke Smart, which tests the user’s knowledge of wildfire smoke exposure. For example, one question is: “How likely are you to reduce your exposure on an Orange AQI alert day?” (which indicates that sensitive populations may experience health effects).

“Through gamification, they’re engaging with the issue,” Dr. Rappold said. “Then they learn about what others are reporting. In that part we also study how different messages change individuals’ perspective on how likely they are to make a change the next time they’re impacted by smoke.”

[email protected]

This Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis supplement to Dermatology News includes commentary from Alan Menter, MD, and Joel M. Gelfand, MD. Highlights include: Dosage cuts of biologics; AAD/NPF guidelines; the impact of comorbidities; weight loss and outcomes; and treatment of elderly patients.

Click here to read.

This Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis supplement to Dermatology News includes commentary from Alan Menter, MD, and Joel M. Gelfand, MD. Highlights include: Dosage cuts of biologics; AAD/NPF guidelines; the impact of comorbidities; weight loss and outcomes; and treatment of elderly patients.

Click here to read.

This Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis supplement to Dermatology News includes commentary from Alan Menter, MD, and Joel M. Gelfand, MD. Highlights include: Dosage cuts of biologics; AAD/NPF guidelines; the impact of comorbidities; weight loss and outcomes; and treatment of elderly patients.

Click here to read.

ORLANDO – A single infusion of zoledronic acid does not completely prevent bone mineral density (BMD) loss regardless of the timing of the infusion in patients with osteopenia who discontinued denosumab (Prolia), according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“If you consider a treatment break in patients treated with [denosumab] for a long time, I suggest to aim for a higher BMD, allowing a smaller bone loss when transitioning via [zoledronic acid] to a treatment break, or maybe you need to give more than one infusion of [zoledronic acid],” said Bente Langdahl, MD, PhD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital during her presentation.

Dr. Langdahl and her colleagues enrolled 60 patients with osteopenia in a 2-year, randomized, open-label interventional study of patients who discontinued denosumab after more than 2 years of use (average treatment, 4.6 years). One group of 20 patients received 5 mg of zoledronic acid at 6 months after their last denosumab injection. Another group of 20 patients underwent monthly monitoring starting at 6 months after their last denosumab injection and received zoledronic acid if their s-carboxy-terminal collagen crosslinks (s-CTX) increased more than 1.26 mcg/L or if they reached 9 months after their last denosumab injection. A third group underwent observation with monthly monitoring starting at 6 months after their last denosumab injection, and they received zoledronic acid if s-CTX increased more than 1.26 mcg/L, BMD loss was 5% or more at any site, they experienced a fragility vertebral or hip fracture, or they reached 12 months after their last denosumab injection. All patients received a readministration of zoledronic acid if their BMD decreased by greater than 5% or if their s-CTX increased more than 1.26 mcg/L after 6 months, 12 months, or 24 months.

The researchers included postmenopausal women and men older than 50 years (mean, 67.7 years), but the majority of patients were women (n = 53) distributed evenly between the 6-month, 9-month, and observation groups. Patients were excluded if they had a low-energy vertebral fracture, had any hip fracture within 12 months, had a T score of less than –2.5 at any site, had received alendronate more than 3 years prior to taking denosumab, used glucocorticoids, had metabolic bone disease, had received hormone replacement therapy, or had cancer.

The observational group patients who met criteria to receive zoledronic acid because of increased s-CTX included one at 1 month after stopping denosumab, two at 2 months, six at 3 months, and one at 4 months. Of six patients who met BMD criteria for treatment at 3 months, one received retreatment 6 months after their first administration of zoledronic acid, and four patients received retreatment at 12 months.

At 2 months, two patients in the 9-month group met s-CTX criteria for treatment, four patients underwent retreatment under BMD criteria 6 months after the first administration of zoledronic acid, and one patient underwent retreatment at 12 months under BMD criteria. In the 6-month group, one patient met s-CTX criteria for retreatment at 6 months, and one patient at 12 months, with five patients meeting BMD criteria for retreatment at 6 months and at 12 months.

Overall, the average bone loss was 4.6% at the lumbar spine and 3.2% for total hip with no clinically significant between-group differences for either site. At 12 months, lumbar spine bone loss was 4.8% in the 6-month group, 4.2% in the 9-month group, and 4.9% in the observational group (P less than or equal to .006), and total hip bone loss was 2.6% in the 6-month group, 3.3% in the 9-month group, and 3.8% in the observational group (P less than or equal to .001).

Although the study followed patients for 2 years after the first zoledronic acid injection, data were available for the first year only, and the study is ongoing, Dr. Langdahl said.

This study was funded in part by Amgen, the Foundation of Vilhelm Pedersen and wife, Aarhus University, the Danish Osteoporosis Society Research Foundation, the P. Carl Petersens Foundation, and the Torkil Steenbeck Foundation. Dr. Langdahl reported receiving research funding from Amgen and Novo Nordisk and is on the advisory board for Amgen, Eli Lilly, and UCB.

SOURCE: Sølling A. ASBMR 2019. Abstract LB-1169

ORLANDO – A single infusion of zoledronic acid does not completely prevent bone mineral density (BMD) loss regardless of the timing of the infusion in patients with osteopenia who discontinued denosumab (Prolia), according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“If you consider a treatment break in patients treated with [denosumab] for a long time, I suggest to aim for a higher BMD, allowing a smaller bone loss when transitioning via [zoledronic acid] to a treatment break, or maybe you need to give more than one infusion of [zoledronic acid],” said Bente Langdahl, MD, PhD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital during her presentation.

Dr. Langdahl and her colleagues enrolled 60 patients with osteopenia in a 2-year, randomized, open-label interventional study of patients who discontinued denosumab after more than 2 years of use (average treatment, 4.6 years). One group of 20 patients received 5 mg of zoledronic acid at 6 months after their last denosumab injection. Another group of 20 patients underwent monthly monitoring starting at 6 months after their last denosumab injection and received zoledronic acid if their s-carboxy-terminal collagen crosslinks (s-CTX) increased more than 1.26 mcg/L or if they reached 9 months after their last denosumab injection. A third group underwent observation with monthly monitoring starting at 6 months after their last denosumab injection, and they received zoledronic acid if s-CTX increased more than 1.26 mcg/L, BMD loss was 5% or more at any site, they experienced a fragility vertebral or hip fracture, or they reached 12 months after their last denosumab injection. All patients received a readministration of zoledronic acid if their BMD decreased by greater than 5% or if their s-CTX increased more than 1.26 mcg/L after 6 months, 12 months, or 24 months.

The researchers included postmenopausal women and men older than 50 years (mean, 67.7 years), but the majority of patients were women (n = 53) distributed evenly between the 6-month, 9-month, and observation groups. Patients were excluded if they had a low-energy vertebral fracture, had any hip fracture within 12 months, had a T score of less than –2.5 at any site, had received alendronate more than 3 years prior to taking denosumab, used glucocorticoids, had metabolic bone disease, had received hormone replacement therapy, or had cancer.

The observational group patients who met criteria to receive zoledronic acid because of increased s-CTX included one at 1 month after stopping denosumab, two at 2 months, six at 3 months, and one at 4 months. Of six patients who met BMD criteria for treatment at 3 months, one received retreatment 6 months after their first administration of zoledronic acid, and four patients received retreatment at 12 months.

At 2 months, two patients in the 9-month group met s-CTX criteria for treatment, four patients underwent retreatment under BMD criteria 6 months after the first administration of zoledronic acid, and one patient underwent retreatment at 12 months under BMD criteria. In the 6-month group, one patient met s-CTX criteria for retreatment at 6 months, and one patient at 12 months, with five patients meeting BMD criteria for retreatment at 6 months and at 12 months.

Overall, the average bone loss was 4.6% at the lumbar spine and 3.2% for total hip with no clinically significant between-group differences for either site. At 12 months, lumbar spine bone loss was 4.8% in the 6-month group, 4.2% in the 9-month group, and 4.9% in the observational group (P less than or equal to .006), and total hip bone loss was 2.6% in the 6-month group, 3.3% in the 9-month group, and 3.8% in the observational group (P less than or equal to .001).

Although the study followed patients for 2 years after the first zoledronic acid injection, data were available for the first year only, and the study is ongoing, Dr. Langdahl said.

This study was funded in part by Amgen, the Foundation of Vilhelm Pedersen and wife, Aarhus University, the Danish Osteoporosis Society Research Foundation, the P. Carl Petersens Foundation, and the Torkil Steenbeck Foundation. Dr. Langdahl reported receiving research funding from Amgen and Novo Nordisk and is on the advisory board for Amgen, Eli Lilly, and UCB.

SOURCE: Sølling A. ASBMR 2019. Abstract LB-1169

ORLANDO – A single infusion of zoledronic acid does not completely prevent bone mineral density (BMD) loss regardless of the timing of the infusion in patients with osteopenia who discontinued denosumab (Prolia), according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“If you consider a treatment break in patients treated with [denosumab] for a long time, I suggest to aim for a higher BMD, allowing a smaller bone loss when transitioning via [zoledronic acid] to a treatment break, or maybe you need to give more than one infusion of [zoledronic acid],” said Bente Langdahl, MD, PhD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital during her presentation.

Dr. Langdahl and her colleagues enrolled 60 patients with osteopenia in a 2-year, randomized, open-label interventional study of patients who discontinued denosumab after more than 2 years of use (average treatment, 4.6 years). One group of 20 patients received 5 mg of zoledronic acid at 6 months after their last denosumab injection. Another group of 20 patients underwent monthly monitoring starting at 6 months after their last denosumab injection and received zoledronic acid if their s-carboxy-terminal collagen crosslinks (s-CTX) increased more than 1.26 mcg/L or if they reached 9 months after their last denosumab injection. A third group underwent observation with monthly monitoring starting at 6 months after their last denosumab injection, and they received zoledronic acid if s-CTX increased more than 1.26 mcg/L, BMD loss was 5% or more at any site, they experienced a fragility vertebral or hip fracture, or they reached 12 months after their last denosumab injection. All patients received a readministration of zoledronic acid if their BMD decreased by greater than 5% or if their s-CTX increased more than 1.26 mcg/L after 6 months, 12 months, or 24 months.

The researchers included postmenopausal women and men older than 50 years (mean, 67.7 years), but the majority of patients were women (n = 53) distributed evenly between the 6-month, 9-month, and observation groups. Patients were excluded if they had a low-energy vertebral fracture, had any hip fracture within 12 months, had a T score of less than –2.5 at any site, had received alendronate more than 3 years prior to taking denosumab, used glucocorticoids, had metabolic bone disease, had received hormone replacement therapy, or had cancer.

The observational group patients who met criteria to receive zoledronic acid because of increased s-CTX included one at 1 month after stopping denosumab, two at 2 months, six at 3 months, and one at 4 months. Of six patients who met BMD criteria for treatment at 3 months, one received retreatment 6 months after their first administration of zoledronic acid, and four patients received retreatment at 12 months.

At 2 months, two patients in the 9-month group met s-CTX criteria for treatment, four patients underwent retreatment under BMD criteria 6 months after the first administration of zoledronic acid, and one patient underwent retreatment at 12 months under BMD criteria. In the 6-month group, one patient met s-CTX criteria for retreatment at 6 months, and one patient at 12 months, with five patients meeting BMD criteria for retreatment at 6 months and at 12 months.

Overall, the average bone loss was 4.6% at the lumbar spine and 3.2% for total hip with no clinically significant between-group differences for either site. At 12 months, lumbar spine bone loss was 4.8% in the 6-month group, 4.2% in the 9-month group, and 4.9% in the observational group (P less than or equal to .006), and total hip bone loss was 2.6% in the 6-month group, 3.3% in the 9-month group, and 3.8% in the observational group (P less than or equal to .001).

Although the study followed patients for 2 years after the first zoledronic acid injection, data were available for the first year only, and the study is ongoing, Dr. Langdahl said.

This study was funded in part by Amgen, the Foundation of Vilhelm Pedersen and wife, Aarhus University, the Danish Osteoporosis Society Research Foundation, the P. Carl Petersens Foundation, and the Torkil Steenbeck Foundation. Dr. Langdahl reported receiving research funding from Amgen and Novo Nordisk and is on the advisory board for Amgen, Eli Lilly, and UCB.

SOURCE: Sølling A. ASBMR 2019. Abstract LB-1169

CHICAGO – Occlusion of the retinal artery has been thought to be a predictor of stroke, but an analysis of patients with diagnosed retinal artery occlusion at Cleveland Clinic has found that their risk of stroke is about the same as the general population, a researcher reported at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Vascular Surgery Society.

“Subsequent hemispheric stroke is rare with or following retinal artery occlusion (RAO),” said David Laczynski, MD, a vascular surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic. “We do caution that large database studies may be overestimating the risk of stroke after RAO.” Studies have reported a stroke rate of up to 20% at 1 year, he said (Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154:645-52).

ROA is a thromboembolic disorder of the vessels that provide blood to the back of the eye. American Academy of Ophthalmology preferred practice patterns recommend that patients with central RAO should be referred to the emergency department or a stroke center.

“As the vascular surgeon who’s on the receiving end of these consults, we have little data to provide to our patients as far as what their prognosis is,” Dr. Laczynski said. He noted the pathogenesis varies and that the diagnosis is difficult to arrive at. Fluorescein angiography imaging of the retina is essential to confirm diagnosis of ROA, but Dr. Laczynski said that many institutions do not have access to this level of imaging.

The study evaluated 221 patients whose RAO was confirmed with fluorescein angiography from 2004 to 2018 at the Cleveland Clinic Cole Eye Institute. The impetus of the study was to use the eye center to evaluate the institution’s experience with RAO, Dr. Laczynski said. “We were specifically concerned with looking at confirmed, symptomatic RAO with the risk of subsequent stroke,” he said. The study’s hypothesis was that RAO is not associated with an increased risk of stroke. The study population is the largest series in ROA ever reported, Dr. Laczynski said.

The average age of patients was 66 years. With a median follow-up of 2.2 years, the stroke rate was 2.3% (n = 5), with four of the strokes occurring at the time of RAO and one at 1.2 years later. Only one stroke patient had greater than 50% stenosis of the carotid artery. The rate of stroke, death, or MI was 10% (n = 22), Dr. Laczynski said. When concurrent ischemic events were excluded, the stroke rate was less than 1%.

“Sixty-three percent of patients (n = 141) had carotid imaging, but only 14.2% (n = 20) had more than 50% stenosis of the carotid artery,” Dr. Laczynski said. “Ten patients had carotid intervention.”

Among study limitations Dr. Laczynski pointed out were its single-center, retrospective nature and that not all patients had carotid artery imaging. “We cannot make any conclusion in regard to RAO and carotid artery disease,” Dr. Laczynski said.

This study was also published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery (2019 Sep;70[3]:e59-60).

Dr. Laczynski has no financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Laczynski DJ et al. Midwestern Vascular 2019. J Vasc Surg. 2019 Sep;70[3]:e59-60.

CHICAGO – Occlusion of the retinal artery has been thought to be a predictor of stroke, but an analysis of patients with diagnosed retinal artery occlusion at Cleveland Clinic has found that their risk of stroke is about the same as the general population, a researcher reported at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Vascular Surgery Society.

“Subsequent hemispheric stroke is rare with or following retinal artery occlusion (RAO),” said David Laczynski, MD, a vascular surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic. “We do caution that large database studies may be overestimating the risk of stroke after RAO.” Studies have reported a stroke rate of up to 20% at 1 year, he said (Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154:645-52).

ROA is a thromboembolic disorder of the vessels that provide blood to the back of the eye. American Academy of Ophthalmology preferred practice patterns recommend that patients with central RAO should be referred to the emergency department or a stroke center.

“As the vascular surgeon who’s on the receiving end of these consults, we have little data to provide to our patients as far as what their prognosis is,” Dr. Laczynski said. He noted the pathogenesis varies and that the diagnosis is difficult to arrive at. Fluorescein angiography imaging of the retina is essential to confirm diagnosis of ROA, but Dr. Laczynski said that many institutions do not have access to this level of imaging.

The study evaluated 221 patients whose RAO was confirmed with fluorescein angiography from 2004 to 2018 at the Cleveland Clinic Cole Eye Institute. The impetus of the study was to use the eye center to evaluate the institution’s experience with RAO, Dr. Laczynski said. “We were specifically concerned with looking at confirmed, symptomatic RAO with the risk of subsequent stroke,” he said. The study’s hypothesis was that RAO is not associated with an increased risk of stroke. The study population is the largest series in ROA ever reported, Dr. Laczynski said.

The average age of patients was 66 years. With a median follow-up of 2.2 years, the stroke rate was 2.3% (n = 5), with four of the strokes occurring at the time of RAO and one at 1.2 years later. Only one stroke patient had greater than 50% stenosis of the carotid artery. The rate of stroke, death, or MI was 10% (n = 22), Dr. Laczynski said. When concurrent ischemic events were excluded, the stroke rate was less than 1%.

“Sixty-three percent of patients (n = 141) had carotid imaging, but only 14.2% (n = 20) had more than 50% stenosis of the carotid artery,” Dr. Laczynski said. “Ten patients had carotid intervention.”

Among study limitations Dr. Laczynski pointed out were its single-center, retrospective nature and that not all patients had carotid artery imaging. “We cannot make any conclusion in regard to RAO and carotid artery disease,” Dr. Laczynski said.

This study was also published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery (2019 Sep;70[3]:e59-60).

Dr. Laczynski has no financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Laczynski DJ et al. Midwestern Vascular 2019. J Vasc Surg. 2019 Sep;70[3]:e59-60.

CHICAGO – Occlusion of the retinal artery has been thought to be a predictor of stroke, but an analysis of patients with diagnosed retinal artery occlusion at Cleveland Clinic has found that their risk of stroke is about the same as the general population, a researcher reported at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Vascular Surgery Society.

“Subsequent hemispheric stroke is rare with or following retinal artery occlusion (RAO),” said David Laczynski, MD, a vascular surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic. “We do caution that large database studies may be overestimating the risk of stroke after RAO.” Studies have reported a stroke rate of up to 20% at 1 year, he said (Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154:645-52).

ROA is a thromboembolic disorder of the vessels that provide blood to the back of the eye. American Academy of Ophthalmology preferred practice patterns recommend that patients with central RAO should be referred to the emergency department or a stroke center.

“As the vascular surgeon who’s on the receiving end of these consults, we have little data to provide to our patients as far as what their prognosis is,” Dr. Laczynski said. He noted the pathogenesis varies and that the diagnosis is difficult to arrive at. Fluorescein angiography imaging of the retina is essential to confirm diagnosis of ROA, but Dr. Laczynski said that many institutions do not have access to this level of imaging.

The study evaluated 221 patients whose RAO was confirmed with fluorescein angiography from 2004 to 2018 at the Cleveland Clinic Cole Eye Institute. The impetus of the study was to use the eye center to evaluate the institution’s experience with RAO, Dr. Laczynski said. “We were specifically concerned with looking at confirmed, symptomatic RAO with the risk of subsequent stroke,” he said. The study’s hypothesis was that RAO is not associated with an increased risk of stroke. The study population is the largest series in ROA ever reported, Dr. Laczynski said.

The average age of patients was 66 years. With a median follow-up of 2.2 years, the stroke rate was 2.3% (n = 5), with four of the strokes occurring at the time of RAO and one at 1.2 years later. Only one stroke patient had greater than 50% stenosis of the carotid artery. The rate of stroke, death, or MI was 10% (n = 22), Dr. Laczynski said. When concurrent ischemic events were excluded, the stroke rate was less than 1%.

“Sixty-three percent of patients (n = 141) had carotid imaging, but only 14.2% (n = 20) had more than 50% stenosis of the carotid artery,” Dr. Laczynski said. “Ten patients had carotid intervention.”

Among study limitations Dr. Laczynski pointed out were its single-center, retrospective nature and that not all patients had carotid artery imaging. “We cannot make any conclusion in regard to RAO and carotid artery disease,” Dr. Laczynski said.

This study was also published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery (2019 Sep;70[3]:e59-60).

Dr. Laczynski has no financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Laczynski DJ et al. Midwestern Vascular 2019. J Vasc Surg. 2019 Sep;70[3]:e59-60.

Key clinical point: Continuing natalizumab treatment during pregnancy reduces the risk of relapse and does not increase risks to newborns.

Major finding: The annualized relapse rate among women who continued treatment after the first trimester was 0.09.

Study details: A comparison of two cohorts of women with multiple sclerosis who received treatment with natalizumab and became pregnant.

Disclosures: The authors received funding from companies such as Biogen, Merck Serono, and Teva.

Citation: Landi D et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract 338.

Key clinical point: Continuing natalizumab treatment during pregnancy reduces the risk of relapse and does not increase risks to newborns.

Major finding: The annualized relapse rate among women who continued treatment after the first trimester was 0.09.

Study details: A comparison of two cohorts of women with multiple sclerosis who received treatment with natalizumab and became pregnant.

Disclosures: The authors received funding from companies such as Biogen, Merck Serono, and Teva.

Citation: Landi D et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract 338.

Key clinical point: Continuing natalizumab treatment during pregnancy reduces the risk of relapse and does not increase risks to newborns.

Major finding: The annualized relapse rate among women who continued treatment after the first trimester was 0.09.

Study details: A comparison of two cohorts of women with multiple sclerosis who received treatment with natalizumab and became pregnant.

Disclosures: The authors received funding from companies such as Biogen, Merck Serono, and Teva.

Citation: Landi D et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract 338.

Whenever Don McLean is asked what the lyrics to his iconic song “American Pie” mean, he answers: “They mean that I don’t have to work anymore.”

It would be nice if those of us who have never written an enigmatic hit tune could receive an unequivocal signal when it’s safe to retire. Unfortunately, the road to retirement is fraught with challenges, not least of which is locating the right off-ramp.

We tend to live longer than planned, so we run the risk of outliving our savings, which are often underfunded to begin with. And we don’t face facts about end-of-life care. Few of us have long-term care insurance, or the means to self-fund an extended long-term care situation, as I will discuss next month.

Many of us lack a clear idea of where our retirement income will come from, or if it will be there when we arrive. Doctors in particular are notorious for mismanaging their investments. Many try to self-manage retirement plans and personal savings without adequate time or knowledge to do it right. Involving a qualified financial professional is usually a far better strategy than going it alone.

So, assuming you have a solid savings plan, and solid help with its management – how will you know when you can safely retire? As with everything else, it depends; but to arrive at any sort of reliable ballpark figure, you’ll need to know three things: how much you realistically expect to spend annually after retirement; how much principal will throw off that amount in interest and dividends each year; and how far your present savings are from that target.

An oft-quoted rule of thumb is that, in retirement, your expenses will be about 70% of what they are now. In my opinion, that’s nonsense. While a few bills, such as disability and malpractice insurance premiums, will go away, other costs, such as recreation and medical care, will increase. I suggest assuming that your spending will not diminish significantly in retirement. Those of us who love travel or fancy toys may need even more.

Once you have an estimate of your annual retirement expenses, you’ll need to determine how much principal you’ll need – usually in fixed pensions and invested assets – to generate that income. Most financial advisors use the 5% rule: Assume your nest egg will pay you a conservative 5% of its value each year in dividends and interest. That rule has worked well, on average, over the long term. So if you estimate your postretirement spending will be around $100,000 per year (in today’s dollars), you’ll need about $2 million in assets. For $200,000 annual spending, you’ll need $4 million. (Should you factor in Social Security? Yes, if you’re 50 years or older; if you’re younger, I wouldn’t count on receiving any entitlements, and be pleasantly surprised if you do.)

How do you accumulate that kind of money? Financial experts say too many physicians invest too aggressively. For retirement, safety is the key. The most foolproof strategy – seldom employed, because it’s boring – is to sock away a fixed amount per month (after your retirement plan has been funded) in a mutual fund. $1,000 per month for 25 years with the market earning 10% (its historic long-term average) comes to almost $2 million, with the power of compounded interest working for you. And the earlier you start, the better.

It is never too soon to think about retirement. Young physicians often defer contributing to their retirement plans because they want to save for a new house or for college for their children. But there are tangible tax benefits that you get now, because your contributions usually reduce your taxable income, and your funds grow tax free until you withdraw them, presumably in a lower tax bracket.

At any age, it’s hard to motivate yourself to save, because it generally requires spending less money now. The way I do it is to pay myself first; that is, each month I make my regular savings contribution before considering any new purchases.

In the end, the strategy is very straightforward: Fill your retirement plan to its legal limit and let it grow, tax deferred. Then invest for the long term, with your target amount in mind. And once again, the earlier you start, the better.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Whenever Don McLean is asked what the lyrics to his iconic song “American Pie” mean, he answers: “They mean that I don’t have to work anymore.”

It would be nice if those of us who have never written an enigmatic hit tune could receive an unequivocal signal when it’s safe to retire. Unfortunately, the road to retirement is fraught with challenges, not least of which is locating the right off-ramp.

We tend to live longer than planned, so we run the risk of outliving our savings, which are often underfunded to begin with. And we don’t face facts about end-of-life care. Few of us have long-term care insurance, or the means to self-fund an extended long-term care situation, as I will discuss next month.

Many of us lack a clear idea of where our retirement income will come from, or if it will be there when we arrive. Doctors in particular are notorious for mismanaging their investments. Many try to self-manage retirement plans and personal savings without adequate time or knowledge to do it right. Involving a qualified financial professional is usually a far better strategy than going it alone.

So, assuming you have a solid savings plan, and solid help with its management – how will you know when you can safely retire? As with everything else, it depends; but to arrive at any sort of reliable ballpark figure, you’ll need to know three things: how much you realistically expect to spend annually after retirement; how much principal will throw off that amount in interest and dividends each year; and how far your present savings are from that target.

An oft-quoted rule of thumb is that, in retirement, your expenses will be about 70% of what they are now. In my opinion, that’s nonsense. While a few bills, such as disability and malpractice insurance premiums, will go away, other costs, such as recreation and medical care, will increase. I suggest assuming that your spending will not diminish significantly in retirement. Those of us who love travel or fancy toys may need even more.

Once you have an estimate of your annual retirement expenses, you’ll need to determine how much principal you’ll need – usually in fixed pensions and invested assets – to generate that income. Most financial advisors use the 5% rule: Assume your nest egg will pay you a conservative 5% of its value each year in dividends and interest. That rule has worked well, on average, over the long term. So if you estimate your postretirement spending will be around $100,000 per year (in today’s dollars), you’ll need about $2 million in assets. For $200,000 annual spending, you’ll need $4 million. (Should you factor in Social Security? Yes, if you’re 50 years or older; if you’re younger, I wouldn’t count on receiving any entitlements, and be pleasantly surprised if you do.)

How do you accumulate that kind of money? Financial experts say too many physicians invest too aggressively. For retirement, safety is the key. The most foolproof strategy – seldom employed, because it’s boring – is to sock away a fixed amount per month (after your retirement plan has been funded) in a mutual fund. $1,000 per month for 25 years with the market earning 10% (its historic long-term average) comes to almost $2 million, with the power of compounded interest working for you. And the earlier you start, the better.

It is never too soon to think about retirement. Young physicians often defer contributing to their retirement plans because they want to save for a new house or for college for their children. But there are tangible tax benefits that you get now, because your contributions usually reduce your taxable income, and your funds grow tax free until you withdraw them, presumably in a lower tax bracket.

At any age, it’s hard to motivate yourself to save, because it generally requires spending less money now. The way I do it is to pay myself first; that is, each month I make my regular savings contribution before considering any new purchases.

In the end, the strategy is very straightforward: Fill your retirement plan to its legal limit and let it grow, tax deferred. Then invest for the long term, with your target amount in mind. And once again, the earlier you start, the better.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Whenever Don McLean is asked what the lyrics to his iconic song “American Pie” mean, he answers: “They mean that I don’t have to work anymore.”

It would be nice if those of us who have never written an enigmatic hit tune could receive an unequivocal signal when it’s safe to retire. Unfortunately, the road to retirement is fraught with challenges, not least of which is locating the right off-ramp.

We tend to live longer than planned, so we run the risk of outliving our savings, which are often underfunded to begin with. And we don’t face facts about end-of-life care. Few of us have long-term care insurance, or the means to self-fund an extended long-term care situation, as I will discuss next month.

Many of us lack a clear idea of where our retirement income will come from, or if it will be there when we arrive. Doctors in particular are notorious for mismanaging their investments. Many try to self-manage retirement plans and personal savings without adequate time or knowledge to do it right. Involving a qualified financial professional is usually a far better strategy than going it alone.

So, assuming you have a solid savings plan, and solid help with its management – how will you know when you can safely retire? As with everything else, it depends; but to arrive at any sort of reliable ballpark figure, you’ll need to know three things: how much you realistically expect to spend annually after retirement; how much principal will throw off that amount in interest and dividends each year; and how far your present savings are from that target.

An oft-quoted rule of thumb is that, in retirement, your expenses will be about 70% of what they are now. In my opinion, that’s nonsense. While a few bills, such as disability and malpractice insurance premiums, will go away, other costs, such as recreation and medical care, will increase. I suggest assuming that your spending will not diminish significantly in retirement. Those of us who love travel or fancy toys may need even more.

Once you have an estimate of your annual retirement expenses, you’ll need to determine how much principal you’ll need – usually in fixed pensions and invested assets – to generate that income. Most financial advisors use the 5% rule: Assume your nest egg will pay you a conservative 5% of its value each year in dividends and interest. That rule has worked well, on average, over the long term. So if you estimate your postretirement spending will be around $100,000 per year (in today’s dollars), you’ll need about $2 million in assets. For $200,000 annual spending, you’ll need $4 million. (Should you factor in Social Security? Yes, if you’re 50 years or older; if you’re younger, I wouldn’t count on receiving any entitlements, and be pleasantly surprised if you do.)

How do you accumulate that kind of money? Financial experts say too many physicians invest too aggressively. For retirement, safety is the key. The most foolproof strategy – seldom employed, because it’s boring – is to sock away a fixed amount per month (after your retirement plan has been funded) in a mutual fund. $1,000 per month for 25 years with the market earning 10% (its historic long-term average) comes to almost $2 million, with the power of compounded interest working for you. And the earlier you start, the better.

It is never too soon to think about retirement. Young physicians often defer contributing to their retirement plans because they want to save for a new house or for college for their children. But there are tangible tax benefits that you get now, because your contributions usually reduce your taxable income, and your funds grow tax free until you withdraw them, presumably in a lower tax bracket.

At any age, it’s hard to motivate yourself to save, because it generally requires spending less money now. The way I do it is to pay myself first; that is, each month I make my regular savings contribution before considering any new purchases.

In the end, the strategy is very straightforward: Fill your retirement plan to its legal limit and let it grow, tax deferred. Then invest for the long term, with your target amount in mind. And once again, the earlier you start, the better.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Key clinical point: Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients who are heavy users of cannabis gain significantly improved cognitive function with a month of abstinence – but do they care?

Major finding: Twenty-eight days of abstinence from cannabis by MS patients who were heavy users resulted in significant improvements in cognition.

Study details: This was a randomized trial involving 40 MS patients who were long-term frequent users of cannabis for symptom relief.

Disclosures: Cecilia Meza, who presented the results, reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada.

Citation: Meza C. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P542.

Key clinical point: Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients who are heavy users of cannabis gain significantly improved cognitive function with a month of abstinence – but do they care?

Major finding: Twenty-eight days of abstinence from cannabis by MS patients who were heavy users resulted in significant improvements in cognition.

Study details: This was a randomized trial involving 40 MS patients who were long-term frequent users of cannabis for symptom relief.

Disclosures: Cecilia Meza, who presented the results, reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada.

Citation: Meza C. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P542.

Key clinical point: Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients who are heavy users of cannabis gain significantly improved cognitive function with a month of abstinence – but do they care?

Major finding: Twenty-eight days of abstinence from cannabis by MS patients who were heavy users resulted in significant improvements in cognition.

Study details: This was a randomized trial involving 40 MS patients who were long-term frequent users of cannabis for symptom relief.

Disclosures: Cecilia Meza, who presented the results, reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada.

Citation: Meza C. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P542.

Key clinical point: Baseline levels of the neuropeptide neurofilament light (NfL) correlated with changes in brain volume at the 5- and 10-year marks in patients with multiple sclerosis.

Major finding: At 10 years, the correlation coefficient between baseline NfL and brain volume loss was –0.395 (P = 0.42).

Study details: Prospective cohort study that obtained baseline cerebrospinal fluid NfL levels and sequential brain MRIs in 44 patients with multiple sclerosis.

Disclosures: Dr. Bhan reported receiving research funding from Novartis Norway; two coauthors reported financial relationships with several pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: Bhan A et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P592.

Key clinical point: Baseline levels of the neuropeptide neurofilament light (NfL) correlated with changes in brain volume at the 5- and 10-year marks in patients with multiple sclerosis.

Major finding: At 10 years, the correlation coefficient between baseline NfL and brain volume loss was –0.395 (P = 0.42).

Study details: Prospective cohort study that obtained baseline cerebrospinal fluid NfL levels and sequential brain MRIs in 44 patients with multiple sclerosis.

Disclosures: Dr. Bhan reported receiving research funding from Novartis Norway; two coauthors reported financial relationships with several pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: Bhan A et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P592.

Key clinical point: Baseline levels of the neuropeptide neurofilament light (NfL) correlated with changes in brain volume at the 5- and 10-year marks in patients with multiple sclerosis.

Major finding: At 10 years, the correlation coefficient between baseline NfL and brain volume loss was –0.395 (P = 0.42).

Study details: Prospective cohort study that obtained baseline cerebrospinal fluid NfL levels and sequential brain MRIs in 44 patients with multiple sclerosis.

Disclosures: Dr. Bhan reported receiving research funding from Novartis Norway; two coauthors reported financial relationships with several pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: Bhan A et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P592.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved lasmiditan (Reyvow) for acute treatment of migraines with and without auras in adults.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The agency’s Oct. 11 announcement said the approval is based on results from a pair of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that included 3,177 adult patients with a history of migraine with and without aura. The percentage of patients whose pain and most bothersome migraine symptom (nausea, light sensitivity, or sound sensitivity) resolved after 2 hours was higher in patients receiving lasmiditan than in patients receiving placebo.

Lasmiditan is a serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine_1F–receptor agonist, giving it a unique mechanism of action as compared with other migraine treatments.

The most common adverse events associated with lasmiditan include dizziness, fatigue, paresthesia, and sedation. There is a risk of driving impairment while taking the medication, and patients are advised not to operate or drive machinery for 8 hours after taking lasmiditan.

“Reyvow is a new option for the acute treatment of migraine, a painful condition that affects one in seven Americans. We know that the migraine community is keenly interested in additional treatment options, and we remain committed to continuing to work with stakeholders to promote the development of new therapies for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine,” said Nick Kozauer, MD, acting deputy director of the division of neurology products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Eli Lilly, the drug’s manufacturer, said in a news release that “the recommended controlled substance classification for Reyvow is currently under review by the Drug Enforcement Administration and is expected within 90 days of today’s FDA approval, after which Reyvow will be available to patients in retail pharmacies” in oral doses of 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved lasmiditan (Reyvow) for acute treatment of migraines with and without auras in adults.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The agency’s Oct. 11 announcement said the approval is based on results from a pair of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that included 3,177 adult patients with a history of migraine with and without aura. The percentage of patients whose pain and most bothersome migraine symptom (nausea, light sensitivity, or sound sensitivity) resolved after 2 hours was higher in patients receiving lasmiditan than in patients receiving placebo.

Lasmiditan is a serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine_1F–receptor agonist, giving it a unique mechanism of action as compared with other migraine treatments.

The most common adverse events associated with lasmiditan include dizziness, fatigue, paresthesia, and sedation. There is a risk of driving impairment while taking the medication, and patients are advised not to operate or drive machinery for 8 hours after taking lasmiditan.

“Reyvow is a new option for the acute treatment of migraine, a painful condition that affects one in seven Americans. We know that the migraine community is keenly interested in additional treatment options, and we remain committed to continuing to work with stakeholders to promote the development of new therapies for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine,” said Nick Kozauer, MD, acting deputy director of the division of neurology products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Eli Lilly, the drug’s manufacturer, said in a news release that “the recommended controlled substance classification for Reyvow is currently under review by the Drug Enforcement Administration and is expected within 90 days of today’s FDA approval, after which Reyvow will be available to patients in retail pharmacies” in oral doses of 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved lasmiditan (Reyvow) for acute treatment of migraines with and without auras in adults.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The agency’s Oct. 11 announcement said the approval is based on results from a pair of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that included 3,177 adult patients with a history of migraine with and without aura. The percentage of patients whose pain and most bothersome migraine symptom (nausea, light sensitivity, or sound sensitivity) resolved after 2 hours was higher in patients receiving lasmiditan than in patients receiving placebo.

Lasmiditan is a serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine_1F–receptor agonist, giving it a unique mechanism of action as compared with other migraine treatments.

The most common adverse events associated with lasmiditan include dizziness, fatigue, paresthesia, and sedation. There is a risk of driving impairment while taking the medication, and patients are advised not to operate or drive machinery for 8 hours after taking lasmiditan.

“Reyvow is a new option for the acute treatment of migraine, a painful condition that affects one in seven Americans. We know that the migraine community is keenly interested in additional treatment options, and we remain committed to continuing to work with stakeholders to promote the development of new therapies for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine,” said Nick Kozauer, MD, acting deputy director of the division of neurology products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Eli Lilly, the drug’s manufacturer, said in a news release that “the recommended controlled substance classification for Reyvow is currently under review by the Drug Enforcement Administration and is expected within 90 days of today’s FDA approval, after which Reyvow will be available to patients in retail pharmacies” in oral doses of 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg.

[email protected]

Autumn is a busy time for pediatric hospitalists, with this autumn being particularly eventful as the first American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) certifying exam for Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) will be offered on Nov. 12, 2019.

More than 1,600 med/peds and pediatric hospitalists applied to be eligible for the 2019 exam, 71% of whom were women. At least 3.9% of those applicants were denied eligibility for the 2019 exam.¹ These denials resulted in discussions on the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine (AAP SOHM) email listserv related to unintentional gender bias.

PHM was first recognized as a subspecialty by the American Board of Medical Specialties in December 2015.² Since that time, the ABP’s PHM sub-board developed eligibility criteria for practicing pediatric and med/peds hospitalists to apply for the exam. The sub-board identified three paths: a training pathway for applicants who had completed a 2-year PHM fellowship, a practice pathway for those satisfying ABP criteria for clinical activity in PHM, and a combined pathway for applicants who had completed PHM fellowships lasting less than 2 years.

Based on these pathways, 1,627 applicants applied for eligibility for the first PHM board certification exam.¹ However, many concerns arose with the practice pathway eligibility criteria.

The PHM practice pathway initially included the following eligibility criteria:

• General pediatrics board certification.

• PHM practice “look back” period ends on or before June 30 of the exam year and starts 4 years earlier.

• More than 0.5 FTE professional PHM-related activities (patient-care, research, administration), defined as more than 900 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• More than 0.25 FTE direct patient care of hospitalized children, defined as more than 450 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Practice covers the full range of hospitalized children with regard to age, diagnoses, and complexity.

• Practice interruptions cannot exceed 3 months in the preceding 4 years, or 6 months in the preceding 5 years.

• Practice experience and hours were acquired in the United States and Canada.^1,3

The start date and practice interruptions criteria in the practice pathway posed hurdles for many female applicants. Many women voiced concerns about feeling disadvantaged when applying for the PHM certifying exam and some of these women shared their concerns on the AAP SOHM email listserv. In response to these concerns, the PHM community called for increased transparency from the ABP related to denials, specifically related to unintentional gender bias against women applying for the exam.

David Skey, MD, and Jamee Walters, MD, pediatric hospitalists at Arnold Palmer Medical Center in Orlando, heard these concerns and decided to draft a petition with the help of legal counsel. The petition “demand[ed] immediate action,” and “request[ed] a formal response from the ABP regarding the practice pathway criteria.” The petition also stated that there was insufficient data to determine if the practice pathway “disadvantages women.” The petition asked the ABP to “facilitate a timely analysis to determine if gender bias” was present, or to perform an internal analysis and “release the findings publicly.”⁴

The petition was shared with the PHM community via the AAP SOHM listserv on July 29, 2019. Dr. Walters stated she was pleased by the response she and Dr. Skey received from the PHM community, on and off the AAP SOHM listserv. The petition was submitted to the ABP on Aug. 6, 2019, with 1,479 signatures.

On Aug. 29, 2019, the ABP’s response was shared on the AAP SOHM email listserv¹ and was later published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine as a Special Announcement.⁵ In its response, the ABP stated that the gender bias allegation was “not supported by the facts” as there was “no significant difference between the percentage of women and men who were denied” eligibility.”⁵ In addressing the gender bias allegations and clarifying the practice pathway eligibility, the ABP removed the practice interruption criteria and modified the practice pathway criteria as follows:

• General pediatrics board certification.

• PHM practice started on or before July 2015 (for board eligibility in 2019).

• Professional PHM-related activities (patient-care, research, administration), defined as more than 900-1000 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Direct patient care of hospitalized children, defined as more than 450-500 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Practice covers the full range of hospitalized children with regard to age, diagnoses, and complexity.

• Practice experience and hours were acquired in the United States and Canada.¹

Following the release of the ABP’s response, many members of the PHM community remain concerned about the ABP’s revised criteria. Arti Desai, MD, pediatric hospitalist at Seattle Children’s and senior author on a “Perspectives in Hospital Medicine” in the Journal of Hospital Medicine,⁶ was appreciative that the ABP chose to remove the practice interruptions criterion. However, she and her colleagues remain concerned about lingering gender bias in the ABP’s practice pathway eligibility criteria surrounding the “start date” criterion. The authors state that this criterion differentially affects women, as women may take time off during or after residency for maternity or family leave. Dr. Desai states that this criterion alone can affect a woman’s chance for being eligible for the practice pathway.

Other members of the PHM community also expressed concerns about the ABP’s response to the PHM petition. Beth C. Natt, MD, pediatric hospitalist and director of pediatric hospital medicine regional programs at Connecticut Children’s in Hartford, felt that the population may have been self-selected, as the ABP’s data were limited to individuals who applied for exam eligibility. She was concerned that the data excluded pediatric hospitalists who chose not to apply because of uncertainty about meeting eligibility criteria. Klint Schwenk, MD, pediatric hospitalist at Norton Children’s Hospital in Louisville, Ky., stated that he wished the ABP had addressed the number of pediatric hospitalists who elected not to apply based on fear of ineligibility before concluding that there was no bias. He likened the ABP’s response to that of study authors omitting selection bias when discussing the limitations of their study.

Courtney Edgar-Zarate, MD, med/peds hospitalist and associate program director of the internal medicine/pediatrics residency at the University of Arkansas, expressed concerns that the ABP’s stringent clinical patient care hours criterion may unintentionally result in ineligibility for many mid-career or senior med/peds hospitalists. Dr. Edgar-Zarate also voiced concerns that graduating med/peds residents were electing not to pursue careers in hospital medicine because they would be required to complete a PHM fellowship to become a pediatric hospitalist, when a similar fellowship is not required to practice adult hospital medicine.

The Society of Hospital Medicine shared its position in regard to the ABP’s response in a Special Announcement in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.⁷ In it, SHM’s pediatric leaders recognized physicians for the excellent care they provide to hospitalized children. They stated that SHM would continue to support all hospitalists, independent of board eligibility status, and would continue to offer these hospitalists the merit-based Fellow designation. SHM’s pediatric leaders also proposed future directions for the ABP, including a Focused Practice Pathway in Hospital Medicine (FPHM), such as what the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Family Medicine have adopted for board recertification in internal medicine and family medicine. This maintenance of certification program that allows physicians primarily practicing in inpatient settings to focus their continuing education on inpatient practice, and is not a subspecialty.⁷

Dr. Edgar-Zarate fully supports the future directions for pediatric hospitalists outlined in SHM’s Special Announcement. She hopes that the ABP will support the FPHM. She feels the FPHM will encourage more med/peds physicians to practice med/peds hospital medicine. L. Nell Hodo, MD, a family medicine–trained pediatric hospitalist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, joins Dr. Edgar-Zarate in supporting an FPHM for PHM, and feels that it will open the door for hospitalists who are ineligible for the practice pathway to be able to focus their recertification on the inpatient setting.

Dr. Hodo and Dr. Desai hope that rather than excluding those who are not PHM board eligible/certified, institutions and professional organizations will consider all qualifications when hiring, mentoring, and promoting physicians who care for hospitalized children. Dr. Natt, Dr. Schwenk, Dr. Edgar-Zarate, and Dr. Hodo appreciate that SHM is leading the way, and will continue to allow all hospitalists who care for children to receive Fellow designation.
 

Dr. Kumar is clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.

References

1. The American Board of Pediatrics. The American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. https://www.abp.org/sites/abp/files/phm-petition-response.pdf. Published 2019.

2. Barrett DJ, McGuinness GA, Cunha CA, et al. Pediatric hospital medicine: A proposed new subspecialty. Pediatrics. 2017;139(3). doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1823.

3. The American Board of Pediatrics. Pediatric Hospital Medicine Certification. https://www.abp.org/content/pediatric-hospital-medicine-certification. Published 2019.

4. Skey D. Pediatric Hospitalists, It’s time to take a stand on the PHM Boards Application Process! Five Dog Development, LLC.

5. Nichols DG, Woods SZ. The American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):586-8. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3322.

6. Gold JM et al. Collective action and effective dialogue to address gender bias in medicine. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):630-2. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3331.

7. Chang WW et al. Society of Hospital Medicine position on the American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):589-90. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3326.

Autumn is a busy time for pediatric hospitalists, with this autumn being particularly eventful as the first American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) certifying exam for Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) will be offered on Nov. 12, 2019.

More than 1,600 med/peds and pediatric hospitalists applied to be eligible for the 2019 exam, 71% of whom were women. At least 3.9% of those applicants were denied eligibility for the 2019 exam.¹ These denials resulted in discussions on the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine (AAP SOHM) email listserv related to unintentional gender bias.

PHM was first recognized as a subspecialty by the American Board of Medical Specialties in December 2015.² Since that time, the ABP’s PHM sub-board developed eligibility criteria for practicing pediatric and med/peds hospitalists to apply for the exam. The sub-board identified three paths: a training pathway for applicants who had completed a 2-year PHM fellowship, a practice pathway for those satisfying ABP criteria for clinical activity in PHM, and a combined pathway for applicants who had completed PHM fellowships lasting less than 2 years.

Based on these pathways, 1,627 applicants applied for eligibility for the first PHM board certification exam.¹ However, many concerns arose with the practice pathway eligibility criteria.

The PHM practice pathway initially included the following eligibility criteria:

• General pediatrics board certification.

• PHM practice “look back” period ends on or before June 30 of the exam year and starts 4 years earlier.

• More than 0.5 FTE professional PHM-related activities (patient-care, research, administration), defined as more than 900 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• More than 0.25 FTE direct patient care of hospitalized children, defined as more than 450 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Practice covers the full range of hospitalized children with regard to age, diagnoses, and complexity.

• Practice interruptions cannot exceed 3 months in the preceding 4 years, or 6 months in the preceding 5 years.

• Practice experience and hours were acquired in the United States and Canada.^1,3

The start date and practice interruptions criteria in the practice pathway posed hurdles for many female applicants. Many women voiced concerns about feeling disadvantaged when applying for the PHM certifying exam and some of these women shared their concerns on the AAP SOHM email listserv. In response to these concerns, the PHM community called for increased transparency from the ABP related to denials, specifically related to unintentional gender bias against women applying for the exam.

David Skey, MD, and Jamee Walters, MD, pediatric hospitalists at Arnold Palmer Medical Center in Orlando, heard these concerns and decided to draft a petition with the help of legal counsel. The petition “demand[ed] immediate action,” and “request[ed] a formal response from the ABP regarding the practice pathway criteria.” The petition also stated that there was insufficient data to determine if the practice pathway “disadvantages women.” The petition asked the ABP to “facilitate a timely analysis to determine if gender bias” was present, or to perform an internal analysis and “release the findings publicly.”⁴

The petition was shared with the PHM community via the AAP SOHM listserv on July 29, 2019. Dr. Walters stated she was pleased by the response she and Dr. Skey received from the PHM community, on and off the AAP SOHM listserv. The petition was submitted to the ABP on Aug. 6, 2019, with 1,479 signatures.

On Aug. 29, 2019, the ABP’s response was shared on the AAP SOHM email listserv¹ and was later published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine as a Special Announcement.⁵ In its response, the ABP stated that the gender bias allegation was “not supported by the facts” as there was “no significant difference between the percentage of women and men who were denied” eligibility.”⁵ In addressing the gender bias allegations and clarifying the practice pathway eligibility, the ABP removed the practice interruption criteria and modified the practice pathway criteria as follows:

• General pediatrics board certification.

• PHM practice started on or before July 2015 (for board eligibility in 2019).

• Professional PHM-related activities (patient-care, research, administration), defined as more than 900-1000 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Direct patient care of hospitalized children, defined as more than 450-500 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Practice covers the full range of hospitalized children with regard to age, diagnoses, and complexity.

• Practice experience and hours were acquired in the United States and Canada.¹

Following the release of the ABP’s response, many members of the PHM community remain concerned about the ABP’s revised criteria. Arti Desai, MD, pediatric hospitalist at Seattle Children’s and senior author on a “Perspectives in Hospital Medicine” in the Journal of Hospital Medicine,⁶ was appreciative that the ABP chose to remove the practice interruptions criterion. However, she and her colleagues remain concerned about lingering gender bias in the ABP’s practice pathway eligibility criteria surrounding the “start date” criterion. The authors state that this criterion differentially affects women, as women may take time off during or after residency for maternity or family leave. Dr. Desai states that this criterion alone can affect a woman’s chance for being eligible for the practice pathway.

Other members of the PHM community also expressed concerns about the ABP’s response to the PHM petition. Beth C. Natt, MD, pediatric hospitalist and director of pediatric hospital medicine regional programs at Connecticut Children’s in Hartford, felt that the population may have been self-selected, as the ABP’s data were limited to individuals who applied for exam eligibility. She was concerned that the data excluded pediatric hospitalists who chose not to apply because of uncertainty about meeting eligibility criteria. Klint Schwenk, MD, pediatric hospitalist at Norton Children’s Hospital in Louisville, Ky., stated that he wished the ABP had addressed the number of pediatric hospitalists who elected not to apply based on fear of ineligibility before concluding that there was no bias. He likened the ABP’s response to that of study authors omitting selection bias when discussing the limitations of their study.

Courtney Edgar-Zarate, MD, med/peds hospitalist and associate program director of the internal medicine/pediatrics residency at the University of Arkansas, expressed concerns that the ABP’s stringent clinical patient care hours criterion may unintentionally result in ineligibility for many mid-career or senior med/peds hospitalists. Dr. Edgar-Zarate also voiced concerns that graduating med/peds residents were electing not to pursue careers in hospital medicine because they would be required to complete a PHM fellowship to become a pediatric hospitalist, when a similar fellowship is not required to practice adult hospital medicine.

The Society of Hospital Medicine shared its position in regard to the ABP’s response in a Special Announcement in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.⁷ In it, SHM’s pediatric leaders recognized physicians for the excellent care they provide to hospitalized children. They stated that SHM would continue to support all hospitalists, independent of board eligibility status, and would continue to offer these hospitalists the merit-based Fellow designation. SHM’s pediatric leaders also proposed future directions for the ABP, including a Focused Practice Pathway in Hospital Medicine (FPHM), such as what the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Family Medicine have adopted for board recertification in internal medicine and family medicine. This maintenance of certification program that allows physicians primarily practicing in inpatient settings to focus their continuing education on inpatient practice, and is not a subspecialty.⁷

Dr. Edgar-Zarate fully supports the future directions for pediatric hospitalists outlined in SHM’s Special Announcement. She hopes that the ABP will support the FPHM. She feels the FPHM will encourage more med/peds physicians to practice med/peds hospital medicine. L. Nell Hodo, MD, a family medicine–trained pediatric hospitalist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, joins Dr. Edgar-Zarate in supporting an FPHM for PHM, and feels that it will open the door for hospitalists who are ineligible for the practice pathway to be able to focus their recertification on the inpatient setting.

Dr. Hodo and Dr. Desai hope that rather than excluding those who are not PHM board eligible/certified, institutions and professional organizations will consider all qualifications when hiring, mentoring, and promoting physicians who care for hospitalized children. Dr. Natt, Dr. Schwenk, Dr. Edgar-Zarate, and Dr. Hodo appreciate that SHM is leading the way, and will continue to allow all hospitalists who care for children to receive Fellow designation.
 

Dr. Kumar is clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.

References

1. The American Board of Pediatrics. The American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. https://www.abp.org/sites/abp/files/phm-petition-response.pdf. Published 2019.

2. Barrett DJ, McGuinness GA, Cunha CA, et al. Pediatric hospital medicine: A proposed new subspecialty. Pediatrics. 2017;139(3). doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1823.

3. The American Board of Pediatrics. Pediatric Hospital Medicine Certification. https://www.abp.org/content/pediatric-hospital-medicine-certification. Published 2019.

4. Skey D. Pediatric Hospitalists, It’s time to take a stand on the PHM Boards Application Process! Five Dog Development, LLC.

5. Nichols DG, Woods SZ. The American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):586-8. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3322.

6. Gold JM et al. Collective action and effective dialogue to address gender bias in medicine. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):630-2. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3331.

7. Chang WW et al. Society of Hospital Medicine position on the American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):589-90. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3326.

Autumn is a busy time for pediatric hospitalists, with this autumn being particularly eventful as the first American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) certifying exam for Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) will be offered on Nov. 12, 2019.

More than 1,600 med/peds and pediatric hospitalists applied to be eligible for the 2019 exam, 71% of whom were women. At least 3.9% of those applicants were denied eligibility for the 2019 exam.¹ These denials resulted in discussions on the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine (AAP SOHM) email listserv related to unintentional gender bias.

PHM was first recognized as a subspecialty by the American Board of Medical Specialties in December 2015.² Since that time, the ABP’s PHM sub-board developed eligibility criteria for practicing pediatric and med/peds hospitalists to apply for the exam. The sub-board identified three paths: a training pathway for applicants who had completed a 2-year PHM fellowship, a practice pathway for those satisfying ABP criteria for clinical activity in PHM, and a combined pathway for applicants who had completed PHM fellowships lasting less than 2 years.

Based on these pathways, 1,627 applicants applied for eligibility for the first PHM board certification exam.¹ However, many concerns arose with the practice pathway eligibility criteria.

The PHM practice pathway initially included the following eligibility criteria:

• General pediatrics board certification.

• PHM practice “look back” period ends on or before June 30 of the exam year and starts 4 years earlier.

• More than 0.5 FTE professional PHM-related activities (patient-care, research, administration), defined as more than 900 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• More than 0.25 FTE direct patient care of hospitalized children, defined as more than 450 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Practice covers the full range of hospitalized children with regard to age, diagnoses, and complexity.

• Practice interruptions cannot exceed 3 months in the preceding 4 years, or 6 months in the preceding 5 years.

• Practice experience and hours were acquired in the United States and Canada.^1,3

The start date and practice interruptions criteria in the practice pathway posed hurdles for many female applicants. Many women voiced concerns about feeling disadvantaged when applying for the PHM certifying exam and some of these women shared their concerns on the AAP SOHM email listserv. In response to these concerns, the PHM community called for increased transparency from the ABP related to denials, specifically related to unintentional gender bias against women applying for the exam.

David Skey, MD, and Jamee Walters, MD, pediatric hospitalists at Arnold Palmer Medical Center in Orlando, heard these concerns and decided to draft a petition with the help of legal counsel. The petition “demand[ed] immediate action,” and “request[ed] a formal response from the ABP regarding the practice pathway criteria.” The petition also stated that there was insufficient data to determine if the practice pathway “disadvantages women.” The petition asked the ABP to “facilitate a timely analysis to determine if gender bias” was present, or to perform an internal analysis and “release the findings publicly.”⁴

The petition was shared with the PHM community via the AAP SOHM listserv on July 29, 2019. Dr. Walters stated she was pleased by the response she and Dr. Skey received from the PHM community, on and off the AAP SOHM listserv. The petition was submitted to the ABP on Aug. 6, 2019, with 1,479 signatures.

On Aug. 29, 2019, the ABP’s response was shared on the AAP SOHM email listserv¹ and was later published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine as a Special Announcement.⁵ In its response, the ABP stated that the gender bias allegation was “not supported by the facts” as there was “no significant difference between the percentage of women and men who were denied” eligibility.”⁵ In addressing the gender bias allegations and clarifying the practice pathway eligibility, the ABP removed the practice interruption criteria and modified the practice pathway criteria as follows:

• General pediatrics board certification.

• PHM practice started on or before July 2015 (for board eligibility in 2019).

• Professional PHM-related activities (patient-care, research, administration), defined as more than 900-1000 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Direct patient care of hospitalized children, defined as more than 450-500 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Practice covers the full range of hospitalized children with regard to age, diagnoses, and complexity.

• Practice experience and hours were acquired in the United States and Canada.¹

Following the release of the ABP’s response, many members of the PHM community remain concerned about the ABP’s revised criteria. Arti Desai, MD, pediatric hospitalist at Seattle Children’s and senior author on a “Perspectives in Hospital Medicine” in the Journal of Hospital Medicine,⁶ was appreciative that the ABP chose to remove the practice interruptions criterion. However, she and her colleagues remain concerned about lingering gender bias in the ABP’s practice pathway eligibility criteria surrounding the “start date” criterion. The authors state that this criterion differentially affects women, as women may take time off during or after residency for maternity or family leave. Dr. Desai states that this criterion alone can affect a woman’s chance for being eligible for the practice pathway.

Other members of the PHM community also expressed concerns about the ABP’s response to the PHM petition. Beth C. Natt, MD, pediatric hospitalist and director of pediatric hospital medicine regional programs at Connecticut Children’s in Hartford, felt that the population may have been self-selected, as the ABP’s data were limited to individuals who applied for exam eligibility. She was concerned that the data excluded pediatric hospitalists who chose not to apply because of uncertainty about meeting eligibility criteria. Klint Schwenk, MD, pediatric hospitalist at Norton Children’s Hospital in Louisville, Ky., stated that he wished the ABP had addressed the number of pediatric hospitalists who elected not to apply based on fear of ineligibility before concluding that there was no bias. He likened the ABP’s response to that of study authors omitting selection bias when discussing the limitations of their study.

Courtney Edgar-Zarate, MD, med/peds hospitalist and associate program director of the internal medicine/pediatrics residency at the University of Arkansas, expressed concerns that the ABP’s stringent clinical patient care hours criterion may unintentionally result in ineligibility for many mid-career or senior med/peds hospitalists. Dr. Edgar-Zarate also voiced concerns that graduating med/peds residents were electing not to pursue careers in hospital medicine because they would be required to complete a PHM fellowship to become a pediatric hospitalist, when a similar fellowship is not required to practice adult hospital medicine.

The Society of Hospital Medicine shared its position in regard to the ABP’s response in a Special Announcement in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.⁷ In it, SHM’s pediatric leaders recognized physicians for the excellent care they provide to hospitalized children. They stated that SHM would continue to support all hospitalists, independent of board eligibility status, and would continue to offer these hospitalists the merit-based Fellow designation. SHM’s pediatric leaders also proposed future directions for the ABP, including a Focused Practice Pathway in Hospital Medicine (FPHM), such as what the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Family Medicine have adopted for board recertification in internal medicine and family medicine. This maintenance of certification program that allows physicians primarily practicing in inpatient settings to focus their continuing education on inpatient practice, and is not a subspecialty.⁷

Dr. Edgar-Zarate fully supports the future directions for pediatric hospitalists outlined in SHM’s Special Announcement. She hopes that the ABP will support the FPHM. She feels the FPHM will encourage more med/peds physicians to practice med/peds hospital medicine. L. Nell Hodo, MD, a family medicine–trained pediatric hospitalist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, joins Dr. Edgar-Zarate in supporting an FPHM for PHM, and feels that it will open the door for hospitalists who are ineligible for the practice pathway to be able to focus their recertification on the inpatient setting.

Dr. Hodo and Dr. Desai hope that rather than excluding those who are not PHM board eligible/certified, institutions and professional organizations will consider all qualifications when hiring, mentoring, and promoting physicians who care for hospitalized children. Dr. Natt, Dr. Schwenk, Dr. Edgar-Zarate, and Dr. Hodo appreciate that SHM is leading the way, and will continue to allow all hospitalists who care for children to receive Fellow designation.
 

Dr. Kumar is clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.

References

1. The American Board of Pediatrics. The American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. https://www.abp.org/sites/abp/files/phm-petition-response.pdf. Published 2019.

2. Barrett DJ, McGuinness GA, Cunha CA, et al. Pediatric hospital medicine: A proposed new subspecialty. Pediatrics. 2017;139(3). doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1823.

3. The American Board of Pediatrics. Pediatric Hospital Medicine Certification. https://www.abp.org/content/pediatric-hospital-medicine-certification. Published 2019.

4. Skey D. Pediatric Hospitalists, It’s time to take a stand on the PHM Boards Application Process! Five Dog Development, LLC.

5. Nichols DG, Woods SZ. The American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):586-8. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3322.

6. Gold JM et al. Collective action and effective dialogue to address gender bias in medicine. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):630-2. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3331.

7. Chang WW et al. Society of Hospital Medicine position on the American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):589-90. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3326.