A new diagnostic test that can help clinicians ascertain a patient’s menopausal status has been approved for marketing by the Food and Drug Administration.

The PicoAMH Elisa diagnostic test measures circulating levels of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), a granulosa cell product in ovaries that is present only until menopause. In research settings, AMH levels have been used to predict menopause and to confirm the occurrence of menopause; levels have been shown to track well with antral follicle count (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Aug 1;96[8]:2532-9).

“Diagnostic results about a woman’s menopausal status may prompt discussions about preventative care for women experiencing menopausal symptoms,” Courtney H. Lias, PhD, director of the division of chemistry and toxicology devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release announcing the marketing permission. “This test, when used in conjunction with other clinical assessments and laboratory findings, can help inform discussions about preventative care, such as ways to help prevent loss in bone mineral density or to address cardiovascular disease, both of which are known to increase after menopause.”

As Dr. Lias emphasized, the new test is designed to be used along with a thorough clinical assessment and other laboratory tests. Having a reliable test for circulating AMH for clinical use allows measurement of a hormone that, unlike follicle stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone, does not fluctuate throughout the menstrual cycle for premenopausal women.

JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, executive director of the North American Menopause Society, provided clinical context about the utility of the new assay. “AMH levels appear to provide valuable information about timing of menopause. While not needed for women undergoing a natural menopause at age 51, it will be very helpful for women at risk of early ovarian failure, such as following chemotherapy for cancer or genetic or endocrine reasons,” said Dr. Pinkerton. “Women desiring pregnancy who are skipping periods can be more reassured if their AMH is normal, as studies suggest, that AMH is highly predictive of timing of menopause.”*

In permitting marketing of the PicoAMH Elisa assay, the FDA looked at data drawn from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation. For 690 women aged 42-62 years, “the PicoAMH Elisa test performed reasonably well at determining levels of AMH in the blood,” the FDA said in the press release. The test also was able to identify women who had already had their last menstrual period, and to determine women who were at least 5 years away from stopping menstruation, according to the longitudinal study.

The PicoAMH Elisa test will be marketed by Ansh Labs. Since the device’s review went through a de novo premarket pathway designed for novel devices of low to medium risk, there will be an additional set of criteria, called special controls, put in place to monitor the safety and effectiveness of the test.

*This article was updated on 10/26/2018.

A new diagnostic test that can help clinicians ascertain a patient’s menopausal status has been approved for marketing by the Food and Drug Administration.

The PicoAMH Elisa diagnostic test measures circulating levels of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), a granulosa cell product in ovaries that is present only until menopause. In research settings, AMH levels have been used to predict menopause and to confirm the occurrence of menopause; levels have been shown to track well with antral follicle count (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Aug 1;96[8]:2532-9).

“Diagnostic results about a woman’s menopausal status may prompt discussions about preventative care for women experiencing menopausal symptoms,” Courtney H. Lias, PhD, director of the division of chemistry and toxicology devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release announcing the marketing permission. “This test, when used in conjunction with other clinical assessments and laboratory findings, can help inform discussions about preventative care, such as ways to help prevent loss in bone mineral density or to address cardiovascular disease, both of which are known to increase after menopause.”

As Dr. Lias emphasized, the new test is designed to be used along with a thorough clinical assessment and other laboratory tests. Having a reliable test for circulating AMH for clinical use allows measurement of a hormone that, unlike follicle stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone, does not fluctuate throughout the menstrual cycle for premenopausal women.

JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, executive director of the North American Menopause Society, provided clinical context about the utility of the new assay. “AMH levels appear to provide valuable information about timing of menopause. While not needed for women undergoing a natural menopause at age 51, it will be very helpful for women at risk of early ovarian failure, such as following chemotherapy for cancer or genetic or endocrine reasons,” said Dr. Pinkerton. “Women desiring pregnancy who are skipping periods can be more reassured if their AMH is normal, as studies suggest, that AMH is highly predictive of timing of menopause.”*

In permitting marketing of the PicoAMH Elisa assay, the FDA looked at data drawn from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation. For 690 women aged 42-62 years, “the PicoAMH Elisa test performed reasonably well at determining levels of AMH in the blood,” the FDA said in the press release. The test also was able to identify women who had already had their last menstrual period, and to determine women who were at least 5 years away from stopping menstruation, according to the longitudinal study.

The PicoAMH Elisa test will be marketed by Ansh Labs. Since the device’s review went through a de novo premarket pathway designed for novel devices of low to medium risk, there will be an additional set of criteria, called special controls, put in place to monitor the safety and effectiveness of the test.

*This article was updated on 10/26/2018.

A new diagnostic test that can help clinicians ascertain a patient’s menopausal status has been approved for marketing by the Food and Drug Administration.

The PicoAMH Elisa diagnostic test measures circulating levels of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), a granulosa cell product in ovaries that is present only until menopause. In research settings, AMH levels have been used to predict menopause and to confirm the occurrence of menopause; levels have been shown to track well with antral follicle count (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Aug 1;96[8]:2532-9).

“Diagnostic results about a woman’s menopausal status may prompt discussions about preventative care for women experiencing menopausal symptoms,” Courtney H. Lias, PhD, director of the division of chemistry and toxicology devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release announcing the marketing permission. “This test, when used in conjunction with other clinical assessments and laboratory findings, can help inform discussions about preventative care, such as ways to help prevent loss in bone mineral density or to address cardiovascular disease, both of which are known to increase after menopause.”

As Dr. Lias emphasized, the new test is designed to be used along with a thorough clinical assessment and other laboratory tests. Having a reliable test for circulating AMH for clinical use allows measurement of a hormone that, unlike follicle stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone, does not fluctuate throughout the menstrual cycle for premenopausal women.

JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, executive director of the North American Menopause Society, provided clinical context about the utility of the new assay. “AMH levels appear to provide valuable information about timing of menopause. While not needed for women undergoing a natural menopause at age 51, it will be very helpful for women at risk of early ovarian failure, such as following chemotherapy for cancer or genetic or endocrine reasons,” said Dr. Pinkerton. “Women desiring pregnancy who are skipping periods can be more reassured if their AMH is normal, as studies suggest, that AMH is highly predictive of timing of menopause.”*

In permitting marketing of the PicoAMH Elisa assay, the FDA looked at data drawn from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation. For 690 women aged 42-62 years, “the PicoAMH Elisa test performed reasonably well at determining levels of AMH in the blood,” the FDA said in the press release. The test also was able to identify women who had already had their last menstrual period, and to determine women who were at least 5 years away from stopping menstruation, according to the longitudinal study.

The PicoAMH Elisa test will be marketed by Ansh Labs. Since the device’s review went through a de novo premarket pathway designed for novel devices of low to medium risk, there will be an additional set of criteria, called special controls, put in place to monitor the safety and effectiveness of the test.

*This article was updated on 10/26/2018.

Why wire-dependent fractional flow reserve may soon be obsolete; stroke risk after a myocardial infarction goes on three times longer than previously thought; poststroke dual-antiplatelet therapy should be cut short; and emergency departments are seeing results from greater use of high-sensitivity troponin T in chest pain patients.

Subscribe to Cardiocast wherever you get your podcasts:
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts

Why wire-dependent fractional flow reserve may soon be obsolete; stroke risk after a myocardial infarction goes on three times longer than previously thought; poststroke dual-antiplatelet therapy should be cut short; and emergency departments are seeing results from greater use of high-sensitivity troponin T in chest pain patients.

Subscribe to Cardiocast wherever you get your podcasts:
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts

Why wire-dependent fractional flow reserve may soon be obsolete; stroke risk after a myocardial infarction goes on three times longer than previously thought; poststroke dual-antiplatelet therapy should be cut short; and emergency departments are seeing results from greater use of high-sensitivity troponin T in chest pain patients.

Subscribe to Cardiocast wherever you get your podcasts:
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts

Concerns may be unfounded for risks of earlier-onset cardiovascular disease in men with hemophilia A, according to investigators.

Cardiovascular comorbidities between groups were generally comparable, regardless of hemophilia A status, reported lead author Thomas J. Humphries, MD, of Bayer, and his colleagues.

“To date, there have been conflicting data in the literature regarding the risks of [cardiovascular] comorbidities in patients with hemophilia A, compared with the general population,” the investigators wrote in Advances in Medical Sciences. “Some studies have reported lower mortality from [cardiovascular] diseases and/or decreased atherogenesis in patients with hemophilia … conversely, other reports indicate comparable or higher [cardiovascular] comorbidities in patients with hemophilia, compared with the general population.”

In two previous commercial database reviews conducted by Dr. Humphries and his colleagues, cardiovascular disease appeared to occur more commonly and at a younger age in men with hemophilia A. More concerning, patients aged under 40 years showed elevated incidence of stroke and thrombosis. The authors sought to clarify these findings in the present study.

The retrospective chart review involved 74 men with hemophilia A and 222 men without the condition, matched by study year, payer type, race, and age. Patients presented at any of 31 medical facilities within the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit. Diagnoses were made between Jan. 1, 1995, and Dec. 31, 2014.

For the most part there were no significant differences in cardiovascular disease prevalence between the two cohorts. Rates of hypertension, obesity, coronary artery disease, heart failure, stroke, venous and arterial thrombosis, ventricular arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, and chronic renal disease were numerically higher in the control group, but those differences were not statistically significant. There were significantly higher prevalence rates for diabetes (P = .0108) and hyperlipidemia (P = .0001) in the control group versus patients with hemophilia A.

The investigators pointed out that meaningful statistical differences using standardized differences were not reached for venous and arterial thrombosis and atrial fibrillation.

“It is worth noting that in the hemophilia A group, hypertension appeared first in the 18- to 29-year age group, as did venous thrombosis,” the investigators wrote, suggesting that monitoring, starting in the late teens, may be warranted.

The investigators also noted multiple study limitations, notably the small sample size, compared with commercial databases that were reviewed in previous studies. Additionally, the severity of disease was unknown for some of the hemophilia A patients and the study only followed patients for 1 year.

“The results of this retrospective chart review did not confirm diffuse statistically significant differences in [cardiovascular] comorbidities and their earlier onset in hemophilia A versus controls,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by Bayer. Three of the authors were employed by Bayer when the study was conducted. Other authors reported employment with Xcenda and the Henry Ford Health System and research funding from Xcenda.

SOURCE: Humphries TJ et al. Adv Med Sci. 2018;63(2):329-33.

Concerns may be unfounded for risks of earlier-onset cardiovascular disease in men with hemophilia A, according to investigators.

Cardiovascular comorbidities between groups were generally comparable, regardless of hemophilia A status, reported lead author Thomas J. Humphries, MD, of Bayer, and his colleagues.

“To date, there have been conflicting data in the literature regarding the risks of [cardiovascular] comorbidities in patients with hemophilia A, compared with the general population,” the investigators wrote in Advances in Medical Sciences. “Some studies have reported lower mortality from [cardiovascular] diseases and/or decreased atherogenesis in patients with hemophilia … conversely, other reports indicate comparable or higher [cardiovascular] comorbidities in patients with hemophilia, compared with the general population.”

In two previous commercial database reviews conducted by Dr. Humphries and his colleagues, cardiovascular disease appeared to occur more commonly and at a younger age in men with hemophilia A. More concerning, patients aged under 40 years showed elevated incidence of stroke and thrombosis. The authors sought to clarify these findings in the present study.

The retrospective chart review involved 74 men with hemophilia A and 222 men without the condition, matched by study year, payer type, race, and age. Patients presented at any of 31 medical facilities within the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit. Diagnoses were made between Jan. 1, 1995, and Dec. 31, 2014.

For the most part there were no significant differences in cardiovascular disease prevalence between the two cohorts. Rates of hypertension, obesity, coronary artery disease, heart failure, stroke, venous and arterial thrombosis, ventricular arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, and chronic renal disease were numerically higher in the control group, but those differences were not statistically significant. There were significantly higher prevalence rates for diabetes (P = .0108) and hyperlipidemia (P = .0001) in the control group versus patients with hemophilia A.

The investigators pointed out that meaningful statistical differences using standardized differences were not reached for venous and arterial thrombosis and atrial fibrillation.

“It is worth noting that in the hemophilia A group, hypertension appeared first in the 18- to 29-year age group, as did venous thrombosis,” the investigators wrote, suggesting that monitoring, starting in the late teens, may be warranted.

The investigators also noted multiple study limitations, notably the small sample size, compared with commercial databases that were reviewed in previous studies. Additionally, the severity of disease was unknown for some of the hemophilia A patients and the study only followed patients for 1 year.

“The results of this retrospective chart review did not confirm diffuse statistically significant differences in [cardiovascular] comorbidities and their earlier onset in hemophilia A versus controls,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by Bayer. Three of the authors were employed by Bayer when the study was conducted. Other authors reported employment with Xcenda and the Henry Ford Health System and research funding from Xcenda.

SOURCE: Humphries TJ et al. Adv Med Sci. 2018;63(2):329-33.

Concerns may be unfounded for risks of earlier-onset cardiovascular disease in men with hemophilia A, according to investigators.

Cardiovascular comorbidities between groups were generally comparable, regardless of hemophilia A status, reported lead author Thomas J. Humphries, MD, of Bayer, and his colleagues.

“To date, there have been conflicting data in the literature regarding the risks of [cardiovascular] comorbidities in patients with hemophilia A, compared with the general population,” the investigators wrote in Advances in Medical Sciences. “Some studies have reported lower mortality from [cardiovascular] diseases and/or decreased atherogenesis in patients with hemophilia … conversely, other reports indicate comparable or higher [cardiovascular] comorbidities in patients with hemophilia, compared with the general population.”

In two previous commercial database reviews conducted by Dr. Humphries and his colleagues, cardiovascular disease appeared to occur more commonly and at a younger age in men with hemophilia A. More concerning, patients aged under 40 years showed elevated incidence of stroke and thrombosis. The authors sought to clarify these findings in the present study.

The retrospective chart review involved 74 men with hemophilia A and 222 men without the condition, matched by study year, payer type, race, and age. Patients presented at any of 31 medical facilities within the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit. Diagnoses were made between Jan. 1, 1995, and Dec. 31, 2014.

For the most part there were no significant differences in cardiovascular disease prevalence between the two cohorts. Rates of hypertension, obesity, coronary artery disease, heart failure, stroke, venous and arterial thrombosis, ventricular arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, and chronic renal disease were numerically higher in the control group, but those differences were not statistically significant. There were significantly higher prevalence rates for diabetes (P = .0108) and hyperlipidemia (P = .0001) in the control group versus patients with hemophilia A.

The investigators pointed out that meaningful statistical differences using standardized differences were not reached for venous and arterial thrombosis and atrial fibrillation.

“It is worth noting that in the hemophilia A group, hypertension appeared first in the 18- to 29-year age group, as did venous thrombosis,” the investigators wrote, suggesting that monitoring, starting in the late teens, may be warranted.

The investigators also noted multiple study limitations, notably the small sample size, compared with commercial databases that were reviewed in previous studies. Additionally, the severity of disease was unknown for some of the hemophilia A patients and the study only followed patients for 1 year.

“The results of this retrospective chart review did not confirm diffuse statistically significant differences in [cardiovascular] comorbidities and their earlier onset in hemophilia A versus controls,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by Bayer. Three of the authors were employed by Bayer when the study was conducted. Other authors reported employment with Xcenda and the Henry Ford Health System and research funding from Xcenda.

SOURCE: Humphries TJ et al. Adv Med Sci. 2018;63(2):329-33.

Dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R), which is used to treat several types of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas, is associated with high rates of line-associated complications, a new study suggests.

MrArifnajafov/CC-BY-3.0

These findings, published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia, confirm other recent findings that DA-EPOCH-R has a significantly greater rate of complications, compared with that of R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) therapy.

The authors note that the use of DA-EPOCH-R is based on data from early phase trials, as well as retrospective data, that support its use as induction chemotherapy in high-grade B-cell lymphoma with MYC, BCL2, and/or BCL6 translocations. But currently, there are no data published from randomized trials that support the use of upfront DA-EPOCH-R therapy.

DA-EPOCH-R is an infusion-based therapy that requires a central venous catheter.

In their study, Rachel J. David, MD, of Wilmot Cancer Institute, Rochester, N.Y., and her colleagues conducted a retrospective study that included all patients treated with DA-EPOCH-R at their institution between March 2011 and July 2016, and also included a concurrent cohort of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who were treated with R-CHOP. The goal was to identify the rates and predictors of line-associated complications linked with the use of DA-EPOCH-R therapy in this population.

The patient cohort comprised 43 patients who received DA-EPOCH-R and 44 patients who received RCHOP.

Patients in the DA-EPOCH-R cohort experienced a significantly higher rate of complications (P =.03), compared with the R-CHOP group.

In the DA-EPOCH-R cohort, 17 patients (39.5%) reported at least one LAC, which included venous thromboembolism, chemotherapy extravasation, and line-associated infection, during the study period. Grade 3 toxicity was observed in 41% of these patients.

In contrast, eight patients (18.2%) in the R-CHOP arm experienced at least one complication, with five of the eight patients experiencing grade 3-4 toxicity.

In a univariate analysis, body mass index of 35 kg/m² and the use of a peripherally inserted central catheter line were both significantly associated with a higher risk of venous thromboembolism (P = .04 and P = .02, respectively).

“For patients undergoing treatment with DA-EPOCH-R in whom the use of [central venous catheters] cannot be avoided, the morbidity of [line-associated complications] should be factored in by the clinician when determining upfront treatment,” the researchers wrote.

They reported having no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: David RJ et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Aug 29. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2018.08.014.

Dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R), which is used to treat several types of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas, is associated with high rates of line-associated complications, a new study suggests.

MrArifnajafov/CC-BY-3.0

These findings, published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia, confirm other recent findings that DA-EPOCH-R has a significantly greater rate of complications, compared with that of R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) therapy.

The authors note that the use of DA-EPOCH-R is based on data from early phase trials, as well as retrospective data, that support its use as induction chemotherapy in high-grade B-cell lymphoma with MYC, BCL2, and/or BCL6 translocations. But currently, there are no data published from randomized trials that support the use of upfront DA-EPOCH-R therapy.

DA-EPOCH-R is an infusion-based therapy that requires a central venous catheter.

In their study, Rachel J. David, MD, of Wilmot Cancer Institute, Rochester, N.Y., and her colleagues conducted a retrospective study that included all patients treated with DA-EPOCH-R at their institution between March 2011 and July 2016, and also included a concurrent cohort of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who were treated with R-CHOP. The goal was to identify the rates and predictors of line-associated complications linked with the use of DA-EPOCH-R therapy in this population.

The patient cohort comprised 43 patients who received DA-EPOCH-R and 44 patients who received RCHOP.

Patients in the DA-EPOCH-R cohort experienced a significantly higher rate of complications (P =.03), compared with the R-CHOP group.

In the DA-EPOCH-R cohort, 17 patients (39.5%) reported at least one LAC, which included venous thromboembolism, chemotherapy extravasation, and line-associated infection, during the study period. Grade 3 toxicity was observed in 41% of these patients.

In contrast, eight patients (18.2%) in the R-CHOP arm experienced at least one complication, with five of the eight patients experiencing grade 3-4 toxicity.

In a univariate analysis, body mass index of 35 kg/m² and the use of a peripherally inserted central catheter line were both significantly associated with a higher risk of venous thromboembolism (P = .04 and P = .02, respectively).

“For patients undergoing treatment with DA-EPOCH-R in whom the use of [central venous catheters] cannot be avoided, the morbidity of [line-associated complications] should be factored in by the clinician when determining upfront treatment,” the researchers wrote.

They reported having no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: David RJ et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Aug 29. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2018.08.014.

Dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R), which is used to treat several types of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas, is associated with high rates of line-associated complications, a new study suggests.

MrArifnajafov/CC-BY-3.0

These findings, published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia, confirm other recent findings that DA-EPOCH-R has a significantly greater rate of complications, compared with that of R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) therapy.

The authors note that the use of DA-EPOCH-R is based on data from early phase trials, as well as retrospective data, that support its use as induction chemotherapy in high-grade B-cell lymphoma with MYC, BCL2, and/or BCL6 translocations. But currently, there are no data published from randomized trials that support the use of upfront DA-EPOCH-R therapy.

DA-EPOCH-R is an infusion-based therapy that requires a central venous catheter.

In their study, Rachel J. David, MD, of Wilmot Cancer Institute, Rochester, N.Y., and her colleagues conducted a retrospective study that included all patients treated with DA-EPOCH-R at their institution between March 2011 and July 2016, and also included a concurrent cohort of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who were treated with R-CHOP. The goal was to identify the rates and predictors of line-associated complications linked with the use of DA-EPOCH-R therapy in this population.

The patient cohort comprised 43 patients who received DA-EPOCH-R and 44 patients who received RCHOP.

Patients in the DA-EPOCH-R cohort experienced a significantly higher rate of complications (P =.03), compared with the R-CHOP group.

In the DA-EPOCH-R cohort, 17 patients (39.5%) reported at least one LAC, which included venous thromboembolism, chemotherapy extravasation, and line-associated infection, during the study period. Grade 3 toxicity was observed in 41% of these patients.

In contrast, eight patients (18.2%) in the R-CHOP arm experienced at least one complication, with five of the eight patients experiencing grade 3-4 toxicity.

In a univariate analysis, body mass index of 35 kg/m² and the use of a peripherally inserted central catheter line were both significantly associated with a higher risk of venous thromboembolism (P = .04 and P = .02, respectively).

“For patients undergoing treatment with DA-EPOCH-R in whom the use of [central venous catheters] cannot be avoided, the morbidity of [line-associated complications] should be factored in by the clinician when determining upfront treatment,” the researchers wrote.

They reported having no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: David RJ et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Aug 29. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2018.08.014.

SAN FRANCISCO – Daptomycin plus fosfomycin is more effective than daptomycin alone for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, according to a multicenter, randomized trial from Spain.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I think this is really an important study; I think it will change clinical practice for this infection” once it’s published, said lead investigator Miquel Pujol, MD, PhD, clinical head of infectious diseases at Bellvitge University Hospital in Barcelona.

The current standard for MRSA bacteremia is daptomycin (Cubicin) or vancomycin (Vancocin) monotherapy on both sides of the Atlantic, but mortality rates are way too high, more than 30% in some reviews. Dr. Pujol and his colleagues wanted to find something better.

Their lab work showed that daptomycin and fosfomycin (Monurol) were synergistic and rapidly bactericidal against MRSA, and anecdotal experience in Spain suggested the drugs improved bacteremia outcomes, so they decided to put the combination to the test.

They randomized 74 MRSA bacteremia patients to the combination, daptomycin 10mg/kg IV daily plus fosfomycin 2g IV q 6h. They randomized 81 other subjects to standard of care with daptomycin monotherapy, also at 10mg/kg IV daily. Treatment was 10-14 days for uncomplicated and 28-42 days for complicated bacteremia.

The open-label trial was conducted at 18 medical centers in Spain, where fosfomycin was discovered in dirt samples in the late 1960s and remains a matter of pride.

At day 7, 69 of the 74 combination patients (93.2%) were alive with clinical improvement, clearance of bacteremia, and no subsequent relapse, versus 62 of 81 patients (76.5%) on monotherapy (absolute difference 16.7%; 95% confidence interval, 5.4%-27.7%). Three people in the combination arm (4.1%) had died by day 7, versus six on monotherapy (7.4%).

Six weeks after the end of treatment at the test-of-cure visit, 40 of 74 combination patients (54.1%) were alive with resolution of all clinical signs and symptoms, negative blood cultures, and no previous or subsequent relapses; just 34 of 81 patients (42%) in the monotherapy arm hit that mark. The 12.1% difference was not statistically significant, nor was the difference in 12-week survival.

However, patients in the combination arm were 70% less likely to have complicated bacteremia at the test-of-cure visit (9.5% vs. 28.4%; relative risk 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7). There were no cases of persistent or recurrent infection in the combination arm, but nine persistent (11.1%) and five recurrent (6.2%) cases with daptomycin monotherapy. The differences were statistically significant.

The subjects all had at least one positive MRSA blood culture within 72 hours of randomization. Exclusion criteria included MRSA pneumonia, prosthetic valve endocarditis, end-stage liver disease, and moderate to severe heart failure.

There were no significant baseline differences between the groups. About half the subjects were men, and the mean age was about 73 years. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score was a bit under 4, and the mean Pitt bacteremia score a bit over 1. The leading source of infection was vascular catheter; acquisition was thought to be nosocomial in more than 40% of patients.

There were no discontinuations from drug side effects in the daptomycin arm, but there were five in the combination arm, including two for heart failure, two for respiratory insufficiency, and one for GI bleeding. Even so, the benefit outweighed the risk, Dr. Pujol said.

Intravenous fosfomycin is available in Europe, but the drug is approved in the United States only as an oral formulation. That could change soon; Nabriva Therapeutics plans to file its IV formulation (Contepo) for Food and Drug Administration approval in late 2018.

Though it is not standard of practice yet, the combination is increasingly being used in Spain for MRSA bacteremia, according to Dr. Pujol. “Patients probably need the combination [at least] initially, especially if they have complicated bacteremia” or fail monotherapy, he said at ID week, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The work was funded by the Spanish government. Dr. Pujol said he had no relevant disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pujol M et al. 2018 ID Week abstract LB3

SAN FRANCISCO – Daptomycin plus fosfomycin is more effective than daptomycin alone for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, according to a multicenter, randomized trial from Spain.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I think this is really an important study; I think it will change clinical practice for this infection” once it’s published, said lead investigator Miquel Pujol, MD, PhD, clinical head of infectious diseases at Bellvitge University Hospital in Barcelona.

The current standard for MRSA bacteremia is daptomycin (Cubicin) or vancomycin (Vancocin) monotherapy on both sides of the Atlantic, but mortality rates are way too high, more than 30% in some reviews. Dr. Pujol and his colleagues wanted to find something better.

Their lab work showed that daptomycin and fosfomycin (Monurol) were synergistic and rapidly bactericidal against MRSA, and anecdotal experience in Spain suggested the drugs improved bacteremia outcomes, so they decided to put the combination to the test.

They randomized 74 MRSA bacteremia patients to the combination, daptomycin 10mg/kg IV daily plus fosfomycin 2g IV q 6h. They randomized 81 other subjects to standard of care with daptomycin monotherapy, also at 10mg/kg IV daily. Treatment was 10-14 days for uncomplicated and 28-42 days for complicated bacteremia.

The open-label trial was conducted at 18 medical centers in Spain, where fosfomycin was discovered in dirt samples in the late 1960s and remains a matter of pride.

At day 7, 69 of the 74 combination patients (93.2%) were alive with clinical improvement, clearance of bacteremia, and no subsequent relapse, versus 62 of 81 patients (76.5%) on monotherapy (absolute difference 16.7%; 95% confidence interval, 5.4%-27.7%). Three people in the combination arm (4.1%) had died by day 7, versus six on monotherapy (7.4%).

Six weeks after the end of treatment at the test-of-cure visit, 40 of 74 combination patients (54.1%) were alive with resolution of all clinical signs and symptoms, negative blood cultures, and no previous or subsequent relapses; just 34 of 81 patients (42%) in the monotherapy arm hit that mark. The 12.1% difference was not statistically significant, nor was the difference in 12-week survival.

However, patients in the combination arm were 70% less likely to have complicated bacteremia at the test-of-cure visit (9.5% vs. 28.4%; relative risk 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7). There were no cases of persistent or recurrent infection in the combination arm, but nine persistent (11.1%) and five recurrent (6.2%) cases with daptomycin monotherapy. The differences were statistically significant.

The subjects all had at least one positive MRSA blood culture within 72 hours of randomization. Exclusion criteria included MRSA pneumonia, prosthetic valve endocarditis, end-stage liver disease, and moderate to severe heart failure.

There were no significant baseline differences between the groups. About half the subjects were men, and the mean age was about 73 years. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score was a bit under 4, and the mean Pitt bacteremia score a bit over 1. The leading source of infection was vascular catheter; acquisition was thought to be nosocomial in more than 40% of patients.

There were no discontinuations from drug side effects in the daptomycin arm, but there were five in the combination arm, including two for heart failure, two for respiratory insufficiency, and one for GI bleeding. Even so, the benefit outweighed the risk, Dr. Pujol said.

Intravenous fosfomycin is available in Europe, but the drug is approved in the United States only as an oral formulation. That could change soon; Nabriva Therapeutics plans to file its IV formulation (Contepo) for Food and Drug Administration approval in late 2018.

Though it is not standard of practice yet, the combination is increasingly being used in Spain for MRSA bacteremia, according to Dr. Pujol. “Patients probably need the combination [at least] initially, especially if they have complicated bacteremia” or fail monotherapy, he said at ID week, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The work was funded by the Spanish government. Dr. Pujol said he had no relevant disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pujol M et al. 2018 ID Week abstract LB3

SAN FRANCISCO – Daptomycin plus fosfomycin is more effective than daptomycin alone for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, according to a multicenter, randomized trial from Spain.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I think this is really an important study; I think it will change clinical practice for this infection” once it’s published, said lead investigator Miquel Pujol, MD, PhD, clinical head of infectious diseases at Bellvitge University Hospital in Barcelona.

The current standard for MRSA bacteremia is daptomycin (Cubicin) or vancomycin (Vancocin) monotherapy on both sides of the Atlantic, but mortality rates are way too high, more than 30% in some reviews. Dr. Pujol and his colleagues wanted to find something better.

Their lab work showed that daptomycin and fosfomycin (Monurol) were synergistic and rapidly bactericidal against MRSA, and anecdotal experience in Spain suggested the drugs improved bacteremia outcomes, so they decided to put the combination to the test.

They randomized 74 MRSA bacteremia patients to the combination, daptomycin 10mg/kg IV daily plus fosfomycin 2g IV q 6h. They randomized 81 other subjects to standard of care with daptomycin monotherapy, also at 10mg/kg IV daily. Treatment was 10-14 days for uncomplicated and 28-42 days for complicated bacteremia.

The open-label trial was conducted at 18 medical centers in Spain, where fosfomycin was discovered in dirt samples in the late 1960s and remains a matter of pride.

At day 7, 69 of the 74 combination patients (93.2%) were alive with clinical improvement, clearance of bacteremia, and no subsequent relapse, versus 62 of 81 patients (76.5%) on monotherapy (absolute difference 16.7%; 95% confidence interval, 5.4%-27.7%). Three people in the combination arm (4.1%) had died by day 7, versus six on monotherapy (7.4%).

Six weeks after the end of treatment at the test-of-cure visit, 40 of 74 combination patients (54.1%) were alive with resolution of all clinical signs and symptoms, negative blood cultures, and no previous or subsequent relapses; just 34 of 81 patients (42%) in the monotherapy arm hit that mark. The 12.1% difference was not statistically significant, nor was the difference in 12-week survival.

However, patients in the combination arm were 70% less likely to have complicated bacteremia at the test-of-cure visit (9.5% vs. 28.4%; relative risk 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7). There were no cases of persistent or recurrent infection in the combination arm, but nine persistent (11.1%) and five recurrent (6.2%) cases with daptomycin monotherapy. The differences were statistically significant.

The subjects all had at least one positive MRSA blood culture within 72 hours of randomization. Exclusion criteria included MRSA pneumonia, prosthetic valve endocarditis, end-stage liver disease, and moderate to severe heart failure.

There were no significant baseline differences between the groups. About half the subjects were men, and the mean age was about 73 years. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score was a bit under 4, and the mean Pitt bacteremia score a bit over 1. The leading source of infection was vascular catheter; acquisition was thought to be nosocomial in more than 40% of patients.

There were no discontinuations from drug side effects in the daptomycin arm, but there were five in the combination arm, including two for heart failure, two for respiratory insufficiency, and one for GI bleeding. Even so, the benefit outweighed the risk, Dr. Pujol said.

Intravenous fosfomycin is available in Europe, but the drug is approved in the United States only as an oral formulation. That could change soon; Nabriva Therapeutics plans to file its IV formulation (Contepo) for Food and Drug Administration approval in late 2018.

Though it is not standard of practice yet, the combination is increasingly being used in Spain for MRSA bacteremia, according to Dr. Pujol. “Patients probably need the combination [at least] initially, especially if they have complicated bacteremia” or fail monotherapy, he said at ID week, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The work was funded by the Spanish government. Dr. Pujol said he had no relevant disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pujol M et al. 2018 ID Week abstract LB3

Babies evolved to cry to get their needs met and adults evolved to be aroused by the sound. Perfect match, right? But crying/fussing was rated the No. 1 hardest part of parenting for 0- to 3-year-olds in our data from more than 68,000 parents.

Petro Feketa/iStockphoto

As clinicians, we become amazingly immune to the crying in our offices, but hopefully not to crying as a concern of parents. Our training directs us to look for pathology such as under- or overfeeding, infection, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), volvulus, a hair tourniquet, or an injury as causes of crying. Having ruled these out, the bigger task is making sure that parents learn to read their infants’ crying and find ways to console them. Learning to handle crying can be tense, frustrating, and upsetting for parents, but success is ultimately satisfying and an important part of the reciprocal interaction that builds attachment for both parent and child.

“Developmental crying” is a great term for explaining crying in the first 3 months to families, as it is age related. The acronym PURPLE was created to teach about this normal crying.
 

• “P” is for peak of crying – babies may cry more each week, most in month 2, then less in months 3-5.
• “U” is for unexpected – crying can come and go without explanation.
• “R” is for resists soothing – babies may not stop crying no matter what is tried.
• “P” is for pain-like face – babies appear to be in pain, even if they are not.
• “L” is for long lasting – crying can last 5 hours a day or more.
• “E” is for evening – the baby might cry more in the late afternoon and evening.

The 1- to 2-week visit is a key time to teach parents about the expected upcoming crying and ways to manage it. I lean on the evidence-based steps for soothing, using the 5 S’s described by Harvey Karp, MD, based on the wisdom of T. Berry Brazelton, MD. These include:

• Swaddling in a wrap that constrains arms and legs.
• Side or stomach holding (but not for sleeping).
• Shushing sounds of voice, radio static, fan, air conditioner, or car ride.
• Swinging gently (point out to never shake a baby).
• Sucking on a pacifier, finger, or hand.

Because babies change state slowly and also respond to high caregiver emotion such as anxiety, it is important for parents to take some deep breaths and give each “S” several minutes to have an effect.

Some of our patients will go beyond typical crying to colic, defined as crying for at least 3 hours per day, at least 3 days per week, starting before 3 months post term. While typically easing by age 3 months, colic can in nightmare cases persist to age 1 year. Needless to say, prolonged crying can be an enormous stress for families. Researchers in the Fussy Baby Network consulting on infant crying have found value in a family prescription for REST: Reassurance, Empathy, Support, and Time away. Reassurance that the child is not ill should be provided after a careful history, including asking why parents think the baby is crying, and a physical exam, even if we think we can tell at a glance that the baby is okay. Remember that every parent’s first concern is whether the baby is okay, and crying indicates otherwise. Parents are counting on us for a thorough exam before we reassure them. Exhausted new parents deserve empathy – acknowledgment of how difficult, scary, and maddening it is to not be able to console their newborns.

While friends are saying “You must be so happy!” after a child is born, ambivalence (What have I done to my life?) is very common, but not easy to admit. We can point out that the typical age at which parents report “loving” their infants is actually more like 6 weeks, when they finally smile! To acknowledge ambivalence, I may say, “When you feel like throwing him out the window, it’s okay to lay him in the crib and put on headphones for a few minutes.” Music, meditation, yoga, or exercise are break activities that also can reduce parent stress.

Support for the parents is one of the most important protections for children at all ages, but can’t be assumed. Unfortunately, crying tends to increase beginning at 2 weeks post term, right when the partner returns to work or relatives leave. It is important to ask, “Who is helping you with the baby?” Just having a partner doesn’t mean that person is taking a turn! Fathers may be afraid of holding a baby, or may have no experience and try to defer. We need to encourage fathers in all aspects of care but especially to “find at least one way to console your baby.” Sometimes mothers “rescue” dads too quickly. While mothers may have both more experience with infants and the magic of breastfeeding for consoling, depriving fathers of working through the struggle of managing crying can result in their developing less confidence in caregiving. It also can cause them to miss out on supporting the mother at this delicate time, a chance to profoundly strengthen the partnership.

Taking into account the importance for parents of finding ways to console crying babies, getting some “time away” can be helpful, especially if crying goes on for months. Maybe those friends who asked, “What can I do to help?” could come over for an hour in the evening (peak crying time) to hold the baby. This also can be a chance for parent time together, a newly rare commodity.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She has no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Babies evolved to cry to get their needs met and adults evolved to be aroused by the sound. Perfect match, right? But crying/fussing was rated the No. 1 hardest part of parenting for 0- to 3-year-olds in our data from more than 68,000 parents.

Petro Feketa/iStockphoto

As clinicians, we become amazingly immune to the crying in our offices, but hopefully not to crying as a concern of parents. Our training directs us to look for pathology such as under- or overfeeding, infection, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), volvulus, a hair tourniquet, or an injury as causes of crying. Having ruled these out, the bigger task is making sure that parents learn to read their infants’ crying and find ways to console them. Learning to handle crying can be tense, frustrating, and upsetting for parents, but success is ultimately satisfying and an important part of the reciprocal interaction that builds attachment for both parent and child.

“Developmental crying” is a great term for explaining crying in the first 3 months to families, as it is age related. The acronym PURPLE was created to teach about this normal crying.
 

• “P” is for peak of crying – babies may cry more each week, most in month 2, then less in months 3-5.
• “U” is for unexpected – crying can come and go without explanation.
• “R” is for resists soothing – babies may not stop crying no matter what is tried.
• “P” is for pain-like face – babies appear to be in pain, even if they are not.
• “L” is for long lasting – crying can last 5 hours a day or more.
• “E” is for evening – the baby might cry more in the late afternoon and evening.

The 1- to 2-week visit is a key time to teach parents about the expected upcoming crying and ways to manage it. I lean on the evidence-based steps for soothing, using the 5 S’s described by Harvey Karp, MD, based on the wisdom of T. Berry Brazelton, MD. These include:

• Swaddling in a wrap that constrains arms and legs.
• Side or stomach holding (but not for sleeping).
• Shushing sounds of voice, radio static, fan, air conditioner, or car ride.
• Swinging gently (point out to never shake a baby).
• Sucking on a pacifier, finger, or hand.

Because babies change state slowly and also respond to high caregiver emotion such as anxiety, it is important for parents to take some deep breaths and give each “S” several minutes to have an effect.

Some of our patients will go beyond typical crying to colic, defined as crying for at least 3 hours per day, at least 3 days per week, starting before 3 months post term. While typically easing by age 3 months, colic can in nightmare cases persist to age 1 year. Needless to say, prolonged crying can be an enormous stress for families. Researchers in the Fussy Baby Network consulting on infant crying have found value in a family prescription for REST: Reassurance, Empathy, Support, and Time away. Reassurance that the child is not ill should be provided after a careful history, including asking why parents think the baby is crying, and a physical exam, even if we think we can tell at a glance that the baby is okay. Remember that every parent’s first concern is whether the baby is okay, and crying indicates otherwise. Parents are counting on us for a thorough exam before we reassure them. Exhausted new parents deserve empathy – acknowledgment of how difficult, scary, and maddening it is to not be able to console their newborns.

While friends are saying “You must be so happy!” after a child is born, ambivalence (What have I done to my life?) is very common, but not easy to admit. We can point out that the typical age at which parents report “loving” their infants is actually more like 6 weeks, when they finally smile! To acknowledge ambivalence, I may say, “When you feel like throwing him out the window, it’s okay to lay him in the crib and put on headphones for a few minutes.” Music, meditation, yoga, or exercise are break activities that also can reduce parent stress.

Support for the parents is one of the most important protections for children at all ages, but can’t be assumed. Unfortunately, crying tends to increase beginning at 2 weeks post term, right when the partner returns to work or relatives leave. It is important to ask, “Who is helping you with the baby?” Just having a partner doesn’t mean that person is taking a turn! Fathers may be afraid of holding a baby, or may have no experience and try to defer. We need to encourage fathers in all aspects of care but especially to “find at least one way to console your baby.” Sometimes mothers “rescue” dads too quickly. While mothers may have both more experience with infants and the magic of breastfeeding for consoling, depriving fathers of working through the struggle of managing crying can result in their developing less confidence in caregiving. It also can cause them to miss out on supporting the mother at this delicate time, a chance to profoundly strengthen the partnership.

Taking into account the importance for parents of finding ways to console crying babies, getting some “time away” can be helpful, especially if crying goes on for months. Maybe those friends who asked, “What can I do to help?” could come over for an hour in the evening (peak crying time) to hold the baby. This also can be a chance for parent time together, a newly rare commodity.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She has no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Babies evolved to cry to get their needs met and adults evolved to be aroused by the sound. Perfect match, right? But crying/fussing was rated the No. 1 hardest part of parenting for 0- to 3-year-olds in our data from more than 68,000 parents.

Petro Feketa/iStockphoto

As clinicians, we become amazingly immune to the crying in our offices, but hopefully not to crying as a concern of parents. Our training directs us to look for pathology such as under- or overfeeding, infection, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), volvulus, a hair tourniquet, or an injury as causes of crying. Having ruled these out, the bigger task is making sure that parents learn to read their infants’ crying and find ways to console them. Learning to handle crying can be tense, frustrating, and upsetting for parents, but success is ultimately satisfying and an important part of the reciprocal interaction that builds attachment for both parent and child.

“Developmental crying” is a great term for explaining crying in the first 3 months to families, as it is age related. The acronym PURPLE was created to teach about this normal crying.
 

• “P” is for peak of crying – babies may cry more each week, most in month 2, then less in months 3-5.
• “U” is for unexpected – crying can come and go without explanation.
• “R” is for resists soothing – babies may not stop crying no matter what is tried.
• “P” is for pain-like face – babies appear to be in pain, even if they are not.
• “L” is for long lasting – crying can last 5 hours a day or more.
• “E” is for evening – the baby might cry more in the late afternoon and evening.

The 1- to 2-week visit is a key time to teach parents about the expected upcoming crying and ways to manage it. I lean on the evidence-based steps for soothing, using the 5 S’s described by Harvey Karp, MD, based on the wisdom of T. Berry Brazelton, MD. These include:

• Swaddling in a wrap that constrains arms and legs.
• Side or stomach holding (but not for sleeping).
• Shushing sounds of voice, radio static, fan, air conditioner, or car ride.
• Swinging gently (point out to never shake a baby).
• Sucking on a pacifier, finger, or hand.

Because babies change state slowly and also respond to high caregiver emotion such as anxiety, it is important for parents to take some deep breaths and give each “S” several minutes to have an effect.

Some of our patients will go beyond typical crying to colic, defined as crying for at least 3 hours per day, at least 3 days per week, starting before 3 months post term. While typically easing by age 3 months, colic can in nightmare cases persist to age 1 year. Needless to say, prolonged crying can be an enormous stress for families. Researchers in the Fussy Baby Network consulting on infant crying have found value in a family prescription for REST: Reassurance, Empathy, Support, and Time away. Reassurance that the child is not ill should be provided after a careful history, including asking why parents think the baby is crying, and a physical exam, even if we think we can tell at a glance that the baby is okay. Remember that every parent’s first concern is whether the baby is okay, and crying indicates otherwise. Parents are counting on us for a thorough exam before we reassure them. Exhausted new parents deserve empathy – acknowledgment of how difficult, scary, and maddening it is to not be able to console their newborns.

While friends are saying “You must be so happy!” after a child is born, ambivalence (What have I done to my life?) is very common, but not easy to admit. We can point out that the typical age at which parents report “loving” their infants is actually more like 6 weeks, when they finally smile! To acknowledge ambivalence, I may say, “When you feel like throwing him out the window, it’s okay to lay him in the crib and put on headphones for a few minutes.” Music, meditation, yoga, or exercise are break activities that also can reduce parent stress.

Support for the parents is one of the most important protections for children at all ages, but can’t be assumed. Unfortunately, crying tends to increase beginning at 2 weeks post term, right when the partner returns to work or relatives leave. It is important to ask, “Who is helping you with the baby?” Just having a partner doesn’t mean that person is taking a turn! Fathers may be afraid of holding a baby, or may have no experience and try to defer. We need to encourage fathers in all aspects of care but especially to “find at least one way to console your baby.” Sometimes mothers “rescue” dads too quickly. While mothers may have both more experience with infants and the magic of breastfeeding for consoling, depriving fathers of working through the struggle of managing crying can result in their developing less confidence in caregiving. It also can cause them to miss out on supporting the mother at this delicate time, a chance to profoundly strengthen the partnership.

Taking into account the importance for parents of finding ways to console crying babies, getting some “time away” can be helpful, especially if crying goes on for months. Maybe those friends who asked, “What can I do to help?” could come over for an hour in the evening (peak crying time) to hold the baby. This also can be a chance for parent time together, a newly rare commodity.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She has no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Physician groups are pushing back against a proposal to implement site-neutral payments, despite the fact that they generally support the concept of it.

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

In the proposed update to the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) for 2019, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services introduced a physician fee schedule–equivalent payment for clinic visit services when provided at an off-campus, provider-based department that is paid under the OPPS.

The American Medical Association said in a letter to the CMS that, while it “generally supports site-neutral payments, we do not believe that it is possible to sustain a high-quality health care system if site neutrality is defined as shrinking all payments to the lowest amount paid in any setting.” The AMA said that the current proposed rule is “complex, confusing, and is not truly site neutral because the policies do not apply equally to all hospital outpatient clinics,” adding that a contributor to the differential between private practice and hospital outpatient departments (HOPD) stems from physicians being underpaid in the physician fee schedule.

In a letter signed by the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, they wrote that, “while ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) are a more efficient and lower-cost alternative to the HOPD for a number of gastroenterology procedures, it does not mean, however, that reimbursement rates for services provided in both the ASC and the HOPD should be the same. Our societies support payment rates appropriate for each site of service and using appropriate policy and payment levers that result in patients receiving care in the most cost-efficient site of service.”

The American Academy of Family Physicians stated in a letter to Seema Verma, current administrator of the CMS, that, while it supports the idea of site-neutral payments, “we note that the payment methodology for 2019 will not assure equal payments for the same service, regardless of site of service.” The AAFP noted that the goal of curbing hospital acquisition of independent physician practices may not come to fruition and that “hospitals may still be incentivized to buy physician practices based on the mix of services they provide and bill them as PBDs [provider-based departments] at Medicare rates higher than would have been paid had the practice not been bought by the hospital.”

The American College of Cardiology offered support for site-neutral payments and, while it did not come out against the CMS’s proposal, it did offer a series of recommendations to consider, including determining that payments reflect “the resources required to provide patient care in each setting” and that “payment differences across sites should be related to documented differences in the resources needed to ensure patient access and high-quality care.”

The American Academy of Dermatology Association voiced its support for the proposal to the agency.

[email protected]

Physician groups are pushing back against a proposal to implement site-neutral payments, despite the fact that they generally support the concept of it.

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

In the proposed update to the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) for 2019, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services introduced a physician fee schedule–equivalent payment for clinic visit services when provided at an off-campus, provider-based department that is paid under the OPPS.

The American Medical Association said in a letter to the CMS that, while it “generally supports site-neutral payments, we do not believe that it is possible to sustain a high-quality health care system if site neutrality is defined as shrinking all payments to the lowest amount paid in any setting.” The AMA said that the current proposed rule is “complex, confusing, and is not truly site neutral because the policies do not apply equally to all hospital outpatient clinics,” adding that a contributor to the differential between private practice and hospital outpatient departments (HOPD) stems from physicians being underpaid in the physician fee schedule.

In a letter signed by the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, they wrote that, “while ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) are a more efficient and lower-cost alternative to the HOPD for a number of gastroenterology procedures, it does not mean, however, that reimbursement rates for services provided in both the ASC and the HOPD should be the same. Our societies support payment rates appropriate for each site of service and using appropriate policy and payment levers that result in patients receiving care in the most cost-efficient site of service.”

The American Academy of Family Physicians stated in a letter to Seema Verma, current administrator of the CMS, that, while it supports the idea of site-neutral payments, “we note that the payment methodology for 2019 will not assure equal payments for the same service, regardless of site of service.” The AAFP noted that the goal of curbing hospital acquisition of independent physician practices may not come to fruition and that “hospitals may still be incentivized to buy physician practices based on the mix of services they provide and bill them as PBDs [provider-based departments] at Medicare rates higher than would have been paid had the practice not been bought by the hospital.”

The American College of Cardiology offered support for site-neutral payments and, while it did not come out against the CMS’s proposal, it did offer a series of recommendations to consider, including determining that payments reflect “the resources required to provide patient care in each setting” and that “payment differences across sites should be related to documented differences in the resources needed to ensure patient access and high-quality care.”

The American Academy of Dermatology Association voiced its support for the proposal to the agency.

[email protected]

Physician groups are pushing back against a proposal to implement site-neutral payments, despite the fact that they generally support the concept of it.

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

In the proposed update to the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) for 2019, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services introduced a physician fee schedule–equivalent payment for clinic visit services when provided at an off-campus, provider-based department that is paid under the OPPS.

The American Medical Association said in a letter to the CMS that, while it “generally supports site-neutral payments, we do not believe that it is possible to sustain a high-quality health care system if site neutrality is defined as shrinking all payments to the lowest amount paid in any setting.” The AMA said that the current proposed rule is “complex, confusing, and is not truly site neutral because the policies do not apply equally to all hospital outpatient clinics,” adding that a contributor to the differential between private practice and hospital outpatient departments (HOPD) stems from physicians being underpaid in the physician fee schedule.

In a letter signed by the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, they wrote that, “while ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) are a more efficient and lower-cost alternative to the HOPD for a number of gastroenterology procedures, it does not mean, however, that reimbursement rates for services provided in both the ASC and the HOPD should be the same. Our societies support payment rates appropriate for each site of service and using appropriate policy and payment levers that result in patients receiving care in the most cost-efficient site of service.”

The American Academy of Family Physicians stated in a letter to Seema Verma, current administrator of the CMS, that, while it supports the idea of site-neutral payments, “we note that the payment methodology for 2019 will not assure equal payments for the same service, regardless of site of service.” The AAFP noted that the goal of curbing hospital acquisition of independent physician practices may not come to fruition and that “hospitals may still be incentivized to buy physician practices based on the mix of services they provide and bill them as PBDs [provider-based departments] at Medicare rates higher than would have been paid had the practice not been bought by the hospital.”

The American College of Cardiology offered support for site-neutral payments and, while it did not come out against the CMS’s proposal, it did offer a series of recommendations to consider, including determining that payments reflect “the resources required to provide patient care in each setting” and that “payment differences across sites should be related to documented differences in the resources needed to ensure patient access and high-quality care.”

The American Academy of Dermatology Association voiced its support for the proposal to the agency.

[email protected]

An initial report from the Endocrine Society has raised concerns about bisphenol A use in products such as food and drink containers, toys, and medical devices, citing recent data that show the synthetic compound is linked to reproductive, behavioral, and metabolic disorders.

Although the Food and Drug Administration classifies bisphenol A (BPA) as safe to use in food containers, there have been hundreds of studies tying BPA to health problems such as “neurological outcomes, abnormal metabolism, reproductive effects as well as growth and development effects,” according to Laura N. Vandenberg, PhD, an Endocrine Society spokesperson, who spoke at a press briefing held on Oct. 23. Dr. Vandenberg explained the FDA’s 2014 position on BPA safety comes from a small subset of publicly available data, but these are not all the data on BPA, as some academic data are still under review.

The Endocrine Society recently held the news conference because they are concerned the FDA has “jumped the gun” before all the research has been published. “Even considering the fact that the data that have been presented by FDA have been interpreted by FDA as suggesting that BPA is safe, scientists still disagree,” Dr. Vandenberg said.

However, the Endocrine Society noted there is an issue with the current literature, which can be used to interpret and report different results. Heather Patisaul, PhD, cited a joint report from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization, as well as a report from the National Toxicology Program (NTP), to illustrate this problem. Both reports expressed concern about BPA safety but took different approaches and a wider viewpoint, and came to different conclusions, she said.

“These two documents both concluded that there was some concern about bisphenol A and behavior, but they identified there was a big problem with trying to pool all this literature together because the experimental protocols were different, the animals were different, the dosing was different,” she said. “It was not a very harmonious literature.”

To combat this issue, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the FDA have funded the CLARITY-BPA (Consortium Linking Academic and Regulatory Insights on BPA Toxicity) study. Dr. Patisaul said CLARITY-BPA is “the most ambitious project that’s ever been done” to study the health effects of a chemical, bringing together scientists from academic institutions, the NTP, and the FDA to help create data for risk assessment.

“The goal was to create this culture of partnership and communication between the agencies that have to make these decisions about safety and the scientists who are producing the data that’s trying to inform those assessments,” Dr. Patisaul said.

Dr. Vandenberg and Dr. Patisaul presented results from the CLARITY-BPA Core Study, which studied the effects of continuous doses of BPA in rats starting from 6 days of pregnancy; after birth, the rat offspring were fed doses of BPA for 1 year and 2 years. A second group of rats in a stop-dose group were fed BPA from early development, where the mothers were fed BPA at day 6 of pregnancy and the offspring fed BPA from birth until puberty (21 days) and followed for 1 year or 2 years. The researchers also examined 2.5 mcg/kg, 25 mcg/kg, 250 mcg/kg, 2,500 mcg/kg, and 25,000 mcg/kg doses of BPA exposure as well as continuous ethinyl estradiol exposure as a positive control.

In the FDA Core Study, there was a significantly increased incidence of mammary adenocarcinoma in the stop dose group and inflammation of the dorsal and lateral lobes of the prostate in the continuous dose group at a dose of 2.5 mcg/kg. In addition, kidney nephropathy and increased body weight in female rats in the continuous group were also seen at the 2.5 mcg/kg dose, Dr. Vandenberg noted.

“I think one of the reasons why FDA is dismissing those low-dose effects is that there’s an expectation with increasing dose, there should be an increase in an effect,” Dr. Vandenberg said.

In the low-dose range, BPA could be acting as a hormone such as estrogen, but also could be acting through other hormone receptors or as a toxicant at the high-dose range, she explained.

Dr. Patisaul also presented results of BPA-related effects on the brain and behavior in the existing literature from the TEDX Low-dose Bisphenol A project, which is a comparison of 391 in vivo and in vitro studies of BPA prior to 2009. The results showed brain and behavior was “heavily impacted” by BPA, as were organ systems such as the heart, which supports the results from the CLARITY-BPA study, Dr. Patisaul noted.

“When you think about reproducibility in the broadest sense, and you look at the effects that the FDA found at low dose, you look at the effects the CLARITY investigators found at low dose, and you go back and look at the existing literature, you see a very clear picture of BPA-produced effects on brain and behavior, female reproductive systems, and the cardiovascular system,” she said.

Dr. Patisaul is a study investigator for CLARITY-BPA.

An initial report from the Endocrine Society has raised concerns about bisphenol A use in products such as food and drink containers, toys, and medical devices, citing recent data that show the synthetic compound is linked to reproductive, behavioral, and metabolic disorders.

Although the Food and Drug Administration classifies bisphenol A (BPA) as safe to use in food containers, there have been hundreds of studies tying BPA to health problems such as “neurological outcomes, abnormal metabolism, reproductive effects as well as growth and development effects,” according to Laura N. Vandenberg, PhD, an Endocrine Society spokesperson, who spoke at a press briefing held on Oct. 23. Dr. Vandenberg explained the FDA’s 2014 position on BPA safety comes from a small subset of publicly available data, but these are not all the data on BPA, as some academic data are still under review.

The Endocrine Society recently held the news conference because they are concerned the FDA has “jumped the gun” before all the research has been published. “Even considering the fact that the data that have been presented by FDA have been interpreted by FDA as suggesting that BPA is safe, scientists still disagree,” Dr. Vandenberg said.

However, the Endocrine Society noted there is an issue with the current literature, which can be used to interpret and report different results. Heather Patisaul, PhD, cited a joint report from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization, as well as a report from the National Toxicology Program (NTP), to illustrate this problem. Both reports expressed concern about BPA safety but took different approaches and a wider viewpoint, and came to different conclusions, she said.

“These two documents both concluded that there was some concern about bisphenol A and behavior, but they identified there was a big problem with trying to pool all this literature together because the experimental protocols were different, the animals were different, the dosing was different,” she said. “It was not a very harmonious literature.”

To combat this issue, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the FDA have funded the CLARITY-BPA (Consortium Linking Academic and Regulatory Insights on BPA Toxicity) study. Dr. Patisaul said CLARITY-BPA is “the most ambitious project that’s ever been done” to study the health effects of a chemical, bringing together scientists from academic institutions, the NTP, and the FDA to help create data for risk assessment.

“The goal was to create this culture of partnership and communication between the agencies that have to make these decisions about safety and the scientists who are producing the data that’s trying to inform those assessments,” Dr. Patisaul said.

Dr. Vandenberg and Dr. Patisaul presented results from the CLARITY-BPA Core Study, which studied the effects of continuous doses of BPA in rats starting from 6 days of pregnancy; after birth, the rat offspring were fed doses of BPA for 1 year and 2 years. A second group of rats in a stop-dose group were fed BPA from early development, where the mothers were fed BPA at day 6 of pregnancy and the offspring fed BPA from birth until puberty (21 days) and followed for 1 year or 2 years. The researchers also examined 2.5 mcg/kg, 25 mcg/kg, 250 mcg/kg, 2,500 mcg/kg, and 25,000 mcg/kg doses of BPA exposure as well as continuous ethinyl estradiol exposure as a positive control.

In the FDA Core Study, there was a significantly increased incidence of mammary adenocarcinoma in the stop dose group and inflammation of the dorsal and lateral lobes of the prostate in the continuous dose group at a dose of 2.5 mcg/kg. In addition, kidney nephropathy and increased body weight in female rats in the continuous group were also seen at the 2.5 mcg/kg dose, Dr. Vandenberg noted.

“I think one of the reasons why FDA is dismissing those low-dose effects is that there’s an expectation with increasing dose, there should be an increase in an effect,” Dr. Vandenberg said.

In the low-dose range, BPA could be acting as a hormone such as estrogen, but also could be acting through other hormone receptors or as a toxicant at the high-dose range, she explained.

Dr. Patisaul also presented results of BPA-related effects on the brain and behavior in the existing literature from the TEDX Low-dose Bisphenol A project, which is a comparison of 391 in vivo and in vitro studies of BPA prior to 2009. The results showed brain and behavior was “heavily impacted” by BPA, as were organ systems such as the heart, which supports the results from the CLARITY-BPA study, Dr. Patisaul noted.

“When you think about reproducibility in the broadest sense, and you look at the effects that the FDA found at low dose, you look at the effects the CLARITY investigators found at low dose, and you go back and look at the existing literature, you see a very clear picture of BPA-produced effects on brain and behavior, female reproductive systems, and the cardiovascular system,” she said.

Dr. Patisaul is a study investigator for CLARITY-BPA.

An initial report from the Endocrine Society has raised concerns about bisphenol A use in products such as food and drink containers, toys, and medical devices, citing recent data that show the synthetic compound is linked to reproductive, behavioral, and metabolic disorders.

Although the Food and Drug Administration classifies bisphenol A (BPA) as safe to use in food containers, there have been hundreds of studies tying BPA to health problems such as “neurological outcomes, abnormal metabolism, reproductive effects as well as growth and development effects,” according to Laura N. Vandenberg, PhD, an Endocrine Society spokesperson, who spoke at a press briefing held on Oct. 23. Dr. Vandenberg explained the FDA’s 2014 position on BPA safety comes from a small subset of publicly available data, but these are not all the data on BPA, as some academic data are still under review.

The Endocrine Society recently held the news conference because they are concerned the FDA has “jumped the gun” before all the research has been published. “Even considering the fact that the data that have been presented by FDA have been interpreted by FDA as suggesting that BPA is safe, scientists still disagree,” Dr. Vandenberg said.

However, the Endocrine Society noted there is an issue with the current literature, which can be used to interpret and report different results. Heather Patisaul, PhD, cited a joint report from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization, as well as a report from the National Toxicology Program (NTP), to illustrate this problem. Both reports expressed concern about BPA safety but took different approaches and a wider viewpoint, and came to different conclusions, she said.

“These two documents both concluded that there was some concern about bisphenol A and behavior, but they identified there was a big problem with trying to pool all this literature together because the experimental protocols were different, the animals were different, the dosing was different,” she said. “It was not a very harmonious literature.”

To combat this issue, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the FDA have funded the CLARITY-BPA (Consortium Linking Academic and Regulatory Insights on BPA Toxicity) study. Dr. Patisaul said CLARITY-BPA is “the most ambitious project that’s ever been done” to study the health effects of a chemical, bringing together scientists from academic institutions, the NTP, and the FDA to help create data for risk assessment.

“The goal was to create this culture of partnership and communication between the agencies that have to make these decisions about safety and the scientists who are producing the data that’s trying to inform those assessments,” Dr. Patisaul said.

Dr. Vandenberg and Dr. Patisaul presented results from the CLARITY-BPA Core Study, which studied the effects of continuous doses of BPA in rats starting from 6 days of pregnancy; after birth, the rat offspring were fed doses of BPA for 1 year and 2 years. A second group of rats in a stop-dose group were fed BPA from early development, where the mothers were fed BPA at day 6 of pregnancy and the offspring fed BPA from birth until puberty (21 days) and followed for 1 year or 2 years. The researchers also examined 2.5 mcg/kg, 25 mcg/kg, 250 mcg/kg, 2,500 mcg/kg, and 25,000 mcg/kg doses of BPA exposure as well as continuous ethinyl estradiol exposure as a positive control.

In the FDA Core Study, there was a significantly increased incidence of mammary adenocarcinoma in the stop dose group and inflammation of the dorsal and lateral lobes of the prostate in the continuous dose group at a dose of 2.5 mcg/kg. In addition, kidney nephropathy and increased body weight in female rats in the continuous group were also seen at the 2.5 mcg/kg dose, Dr. Vandenberg noted.

“I think one of the reasons why FDA is dismissing those low-dose effects is that there’s an expectation with increasing dose, there should be an increase in an effect,” Dr. Vandenberg said.

In the low-dose range, BPA could be acting as a hormone such as estrogen, but also could be acting through other hormone receptors or as a toxicant at the high-dose range, she explained.

Dr. Patisaul also presented results of BPA-related effects on the brain and behavior in the existing literature from the TEDX Low-dose Bisphenol A project, which is a comparison of 391 in vivo and in vitro studies of BPA prior to 2009. The results showed brain and behavior was “heavily impacted” by BPA, as were organ systems such as the heart, which supports the results from the CLARITY-BPA study, Dr. Patisaul noted.

“When you think about reproducibility in the broadest sense, and you look at the effects that the FDA found at low dose, you look at the effects the CLARITY investigators found at low dose, and you go back and look at the existing literature, you see a very clear picture of BPA-produced effects on brain and behavior, female reproductive systems, and the cardiovascular system,” she said.

Dr. Patisaul is a study investigator for CLARITY-BPA.

Medicaid enrollment fell by 0.6% in 2018 – its first drop since 2007 – because of the strong economy and increased efforts in some states to verify eligibility, a new report finds.

But costs continue to go up. Total Medicaid spending rose 4.2% in 2018, same as a year ago, as a result of rising costs for drugs, long-term care, and mental health services, according to the study released Oct. 25 by the Kaiser Family Foundation. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

States expect total Medicaid spending growth to accelerate modestly to 5.3% in 2019 as enrollment increases by about 1%, according to the annual survey of state Medicaid directors.

About 73 million people were enrolled in Medicaid in August, according to a federal report released Wednesday.

Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income Americans, has seen its rolls soar in the past decade – initially as a result of massive job losses during the Great Recession and in recent years when dozens of states expanded eligibility using federal financing provided by the Affordable Care Act. Thirty-three states expanded their programs to cover people with incomes under 138% of the federal poverty level, or an income of about $16,750 for an individual in 2018.

Medicaid spending and enrollment typically rise during economic downturns as more people lose jobs and health benefits. When the economy is humming, Medicaid enrollment flattens as more people get back to work and can get coverage at work or can afford to buy it on their own. The national unemployment rate was 3.7% in September, the lowest since 1969.

The falling unemployment rate is the main reason for the drop in Medicaid enrollment, but some states have reduced their rolls by requiring adults and families to verify their eligibility. Arkansas, for example, has cut thousands of people after instituting new steps to confirm eligibility.

The brightening economic outlook for states has led many to increase benefits to enrollees and payment rates for health providers.

“A total of 19 states expanded or enhanced covered benefits in fiscal 2018 and 24 states plan to add or enhance benefits for the current fiscal year, which for most states started in July,” the Kaiser report said. “The most common benefit enhancements reported were for mental health and substance abuse services. A handful of states reported expansions related to dental services, telehealth, physical or occupational therapies and home visiting services for pregnant women.”

A dozen states increased pay to dentists and 18 states added to primary care doctors’ reimbursements for fiscal year 2019.

Medicaid covers about 20% of U.S. residents and accounts for nearly one-sixth of health care expenditures. Nearly half of enrollees are children.

Overall, the federal government pays about 62% of Medicaid costs with state’s picking up the rest. Poorer states get a higher federal match rate.

Seventeen Republican-controlled states have not expanded Medicaid. For individuals accepted into the program as part of the ACA expansion, the federal government paid the full cost of coverage from 2014 through 2016. It will pay no less than 90% thereafter.

In 2018, the states’ share of spending rose 4.9%. This was the first full year that states were responsible for part of the cost of the expansion. States expect their spending will grow about 3.5% in 2019.

Robin Rudowitz, one of the authors of the study and associate director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, said the survey found many states were using Medicaid to address the opioid crisis by expanding benefits for substance disorders and also by implementing tougher restrictions on prescriptions.

“Almost every governor wants to do something, and Medicaid is generally a large part of it,” she said.

While the Trump administration’s approval of work requirements for some adults on Medicaid has generated controversy over the past year, the report shows that states are making many other changes to the program, such as increasing benefits and changing how it pays providers to get better value.
 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Medicaid enrollment fell by 0.6% in 2018 – its first drop since 2007 – because of the strong economy and increased efforts in some states to verify eligibility, a new report finds.

But costs continue to go up. Total Medicaid spending rose 4.2% in 2018, same as a year ago, as a result of rising costs for drugs, long-term care, and mental health services, according to the study released Oct. 25 by the Kaiser Family Foundation. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

States expect total Medicaid spending growth to accelerate modestly to 5.3% in 2019 as enrollment increases by about 1%, according to the annual survey of state Medicaid directors.

About 73 million people were enrolled in Medicaid in August, according to a federal report released Wednesday.

Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income Americans, has seen its rolls soar in the past decade – initially as a result of massive job losses during the Great Recession and in recent years when dozens of states expanded eligibility using federal financing provided by the Affordable Care Act. Thirty-three states expanded their programs to cover people with incomes under 138% of the federal poverty level, or an income of about $16,750 for an individual in 2018.

Medicaid spending and enrollment typically rise during economic downturns as more people lose jobs and health benefits. When the economy is humming, Medicaid enrollment flattens as more people get back to work and can get coverage at work or can afford to buy it on their own. The national unemployment rate was 3.7% in September, the lowest since 1969.

The falling unemployment rate is the main reason for the drop in Medicaid enrollment, but some states have reduced their rolls by requiring adults and families to verify their eligibility. Arkansas, for example, has cut thousands of people after instituting new steps to confirm eligibility.

The brightening economic outlook for states has led many to increase benefits to enrollees and payment rates for health providers.

“A total of 19 states expanded or enhanced covered benefits in fiscal 2018 and 24 states plan to add or enhance benefits for the current fiscal year, which for most states started in July,” the Kaiser report said. “The most common benefit enhancements reported were for mental health and substance abuse services. A handful of states reported expansions related to dental services, telehealth, physical or occupational therapies and home visiting services for pregnant women.”

A dozen states increased pay to dentists and 18 states added to primary care doctors’ reimbursements for fiscal year 2019.

Medicaid covers about 20% of U.S. residents and accounts for nearly one-sixth of health care expenditures. Nearly half of enrollees are children.

Overall, the federal government pays about 62% of Medicaid costs with state’s picking up the rest. Poorer states get a higher federal match rate.

Seventeen Republican-controlled states have not expanded Medicaid. For individuals accepted into the program as part of the ACA expansion, the federal government paid the full cost of coverage from 2014 through 2016. It will pay no less than 90% thereafter.

In 2018, the states’ share of spending rose 4.9%. This was the first full year that states were responsible for part of the cost of the expansion. States expect their spending will grow about 3.5% in 2019.

Robin Rudowitz, one of the authors of the study and associate director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, said the survey found many states were using Medicaid to address the opioid crisis by expanding benefits for substance disorders and also by implementing tougher restrictions on prescriptions.

“Almost every governor wants to do something, and Medicaid is generally a large part of it,” she said.

While the Trump administration’s approval of work requirements for some adults on Medicaid has generated controversy over the past year, the report shows that states are making many other changes to the program, such as increasing benefits and changing how it pays providers to get better value.
 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Medicaid enrollment fell by 0.6% in 2018 – its first drop since 2007 – because of the strong economy and increased efforts in some states to verify eligibility, a new report finds.

But costs continue to go up. Total Medicaid spending rose 4.2% in 2018, same as a year ago, as a result of rising costs for drugs, long-term care, and mental health services, according to the study released Oct. 25 by the Kaiser Family Foundation. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

States expect total Medicaid spending growth to accelerate modestly to 5.3% in 2019 as enrollment increases by about 1%, according to the annual survey of state Medicaid directors.

About 73 million people were enrolled in Medicaid in August, according to a federal report released Wednesday.

Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income Americans, has seen its rolls soar in the past decade – initially as a result of massive job losses during the Great Recession and in recent years when dozens of states expanded eligibility using federal financing provided by the Affordable Care Act. Thirty-three states expanded their programs to cover people with incomes under 138% of the federal poverty level, or an income of about $16,750 for an individual in 2018.

Medicaid spending and enrollment typically rise during economic downturns as more people lose jobs and health benefits. When the economy is humming, Medicaid enrollment flattens as more people get back to work and can get coverage at work or can afford to buy it on their own. The national unemployment rate was 3.7% in September, the lowest since 1969.

The falling unemployment rate is the main reason for the drop in Medicaid enrollment, but some states have reduced their rolls by requiring adults and families to verify their eligibility. Arkansas, for example, has cut thousands of people after instituting new steps to confirm eligibility.

The brightening economic outlook for states has led many to increase benefits to enrollees and payment rates for health providers.

“A total of 19 states expanded or enhanced covered benefits in fiscal 2018 and 24 states plan to add or enhance benefits for the current fiscal year, which for most states started in July,” the Kaiser report said. “The most common benefit enhancements reported were for mental health and substance abuse services. A handful of states reported expansions related to dental services, telehealth, physical or occupational therapies and home visiting services for pregnant women.”

A dozen states increased pay to dentists and 18 states added to primary care doctors’ reimbursements for fiscal year 2019.

Medicaid covers about 20% of U.S. residents and accounts for nearly one-sixth of health care expenditures. Nearly half of enrollees are children.

Overall, the federal government pays about 62% of Medicaid costs with state’s picking up the rest. Poorer states get a higher federal match rate.

Seventeen Republican-controlled states have not expanded Medicaid. For individuals accepted into the program as part of the ACA expansion, the federal government paid the full cost of coverage from 2014 through 2016. It will pay no less than 90% thereafter.

In 2018, the states’ share of spending rose 4.9%. This was the first full year that states were responsible for part of the cost of the expansion. States expect their spending will grow about 3.5% in 2019.

Robin Rudowitz, one of the authors of the study and associate director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, said the survey found many states were using Medicaid to address the opioid crisis by expanding benefits for substance disorders and also by implementing tougher restrictions on prescriptions.

“Almost every governor wants to do something, and Medicaid is generally a large part of it,” she said.

While the Trump administration’s approval of work requirements for some adults on Medicaid has generated controversy over the past year, the report shows that states are making many other changes to the program, such as increasing benefits and changing how it pays providers to get better value.
 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

I think the question was intended as polite, dinner party chit chat ... maybe an attempt by a gracious hostess to make sure everyone was engaged in conversation.

“So what pediatric infectious disease should parents be most worried about?” she asked me.

I’ll admit that a couple of perfectly respectable and noncontroversial possibilities crossed my mind before I answered.

Acute flaccid myelitis? Measles?

When I replied, “gonorrhea,” conversation at the table pretty much stopped.

Let me explain. Acute flaccid myelitis is a polio-like neurologic condition that has been grabbing headlines. Yes, it is concerning that most cases have occurred in children and some affected children are left with long-term deficits. Technically though, AFM is a neurologic rather than an infectious disease. When cases occur, we suspect a viral infection but according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, no pathogen has been consistently identified from the spinal fluid of infected patients. From August 2014 to September 2018, the CDC received information on 368 confirmed cases, so AFM fortunately is still rare.

News reports describe measles outbreaks raging in Europe – more than 41,000 cases so far this year, and 40 deaths – and warn that the United States could be next. But let’s be honest: We have a safe and effective vaccine for measles and outbreaks like this don’t happen when individuals are appropriately immunized. Parents, immunize your children. If you are lucky enough to be traveling to Europe with your baby, remember that MMR vaccine is indicated for 6- to 11-month olds, but it doesn’t count in the 2-dose series.

But gonorrhea?

In 2017, the World Health Organization included Neisseria gonorrhoeae on its list of bacteria that pose the greatest threat to human health and for which new antibiotics are urgently needed. The popular media are calling N. gonorrhoeae one of the new “superbugs.” Globally, patients are being diagnosed with strains of gonorrhea that are resistant to all commonly used antibiotics. As reported during IDWeek 2018 this October, patients also are being diagnosed in the United States.

CDC

Sancta St. Cyr, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and her colleagues reported data from the Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP) and trends in multidrug resistant (MDR) and extensively-drug resistant (XDR) gonorrhea in the United States. A gonococcal isolate with resistance or elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) to greater than or equal to two classes of antimicrobials is classified as MDR and an isolate with elevated MICs to greater than or equal to three classes of antimicrobials is classified as XDR. The MIC is the lowest antimicrobial concentration that inhibits growth of bacteria in the laboratory and rising MICs – evidence that higher levels of an antibiotic are needed to stop bacterial growth – can be an early indicator that resistance is emerging.

More than 150,000 gonococcal isolates were tested between 1987 and 2016. The first isolates with elevated MICs to cephalosporins and macrolides were identified in 1998, and since 2011, MDR resistance rates have hovered around 1%. In 2016, the rate was 1.1%, down from 1.3% in 2011. A single XDR isolate with resistance to fluoroquinolones with elevated MICs to both cephalosporins and macrolides was identified in 2011.

One could look at these data and ask if this is a “glass half full or half empty” situation, but I propose that clinicians and public health officials should not look at these data and be reassured that rates of MDR-gonorrhea remained stable between 2010 and 2016. According to a recent surveillance report released by the CDC, the absolute number of cases of gonorrhea has continued to rise. In 2017, there were 555,608 cases reported in the United States, a 67% increase since 2013. If we assume that rates of resistance in 2017 were similar to those in 2016, that’s more than 5,000 cases of MDR-gonorrhea in a single year.

“That’s bad,” one of my dining companions agreed. “But is gonorrhea really a pediatric issue?”

To answer that question, we just have to look at the numbers. According to the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the percentage of high school students who had ever had sex was approximately 40% and about 10% of students had four or more lifetime partners. More than 45% of sexually active students denied the use of a condom during the last sexual intercourse. Certainly, that puts many teenagers at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that public health authorities report that half of all new STIs occur in individuals aged 15-24 years. Moreover, 25% of sexually active adolescent girls contract at least one STI.

Gonorrhea is the second most commonly reported notifiable disease in the United States, and according to the CDC, rates of disease in 2017 were highest among adolescents and young adults. In females specifically, the highest rates of gonorrhea were observed among those aged 20-24 years (684.8 cases per 100,000 females) and 15-19 years (557.4 cases per 100,000 females).

It makes sense that pediatricians and parents advocate for making the reduction of gonorrhea transmission rates a public health priority. We also need to recognize that prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment are critical. Since 2015, dual therapy with ceftriaxone and azithromycin is the only CDC-recommended treatment for gonorrhea.

At that dinner party, my closest friend, who also happens to be a pediatrician, rolled her eyes and shot me look that I’m sure meant, “Nobody really wants to talk about gonorrhea over dessert.” Still, because she is a good friend she said, “So basically you’re saying that millions of teenagers are getting infected with a form of gonorrhea that takes at least two antibiotics to treat, and if this keeps up, we may see kids with untreatable infection. Now that is scary.”

I kept quiet after that but I wanted to mention that in 2017, less than 85% of patients diagnosed with gonorrhea at selected surveillance sites received the recommended treatment with two antibiotics. Patients with inadequately treated gonorrhea are at risk for a host of sequelae. Women can develop pelvic inflammatory disease, abscesses, chronic pelvic pain, and damage of the fallopian tubes that can lead to infertility. Men can develop epididymitis, which occasionally results in infertility. Rarely, N. gonorrhoeae can spread to the blood and cause life-threatening infection. Of course, patients who aren’t treated appropriately may continue to spread the bacteria. Scary? You bet.

For pediatricians who need a refresher course in the treatment of STIs, there are free resources available. The CDC’s 2015 STD Treatment Guidelines are available in a free app; the app contains a nice refresher on taking a sexual history. There also is a print version, wall chart, and pocket guide. Providers also may want to check out the National STD Curriculum offered by the University of Washington STD Prevention Training Center and the University of Washington. Visit https://www.std.uw.edu/.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

I think the question was intended as polite, dinner party chit chat ... maybe an attempt by a gracious hostess to make sure everyone was engaged in conversation.

“So what pediatric infectious disease should parents be most worried about?” she asked me.

I’ll admit that a couple of perfectly respectable and noncontroversial possibilities crossed my mind before I answered.

Acute flaccid myelitis? Measles?

When I replied, “gonorrhea,” conversation at the table pretty much stopped.

Let me explain. Acute flaccid myelitis is a polio-like neurologic condition that has been grabbing headlines. Yes, it is concerning that most cases have occurred in children and some affected children are left with long-term deficits. Technically though, AFM is a neurologic rather than an infectious disease. When cases occur, we suspect a viral infection but according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, no pathogen has been consistently identified from the spinal fluid of infected patients. From August 2014 to September 2018, the CDC received information on 368 confirmed cases, so AFM fortunately is still rare.

News reports describe measles outbreaks raging in Europe – more than 41,000 cases so far this year, and 40 deaths – and warn that the United States could be next. But let’s be honest: We have a safe and effective vaccine for measles and outbreaks like this don’t happen when individuals are appropriately immunized. Parents, immunize your children. If you are lucky enough to be traveling to Europe with your baby, remember that MMR vaccine is indicated for 6- to 11-month olds, but it doesn’t count in the 2-dose series.

But gonorrhea?

In 2017, the World Health Organization included Neisseria gonorrhoeae on its list of bacteria that pose the greatest threat to human health and for which new antibiotics are urgently needed. The popular media are calling N. gonorrhoeae one of the new “superbugs.” Globally, patients are being diagnosed with strains of gonorrhea that are resistant to all commonly used antibiotics. As reported during IDWeek 2018 this October, patients also are being diagnosed in the United States.

CDC

Sancta St. Cyr, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and her colleagues reported data from the Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP) and trends in multidrug resistant (MDR) and extensively-drug resistant (XDR) gonorrhea in the United States. A gonococcal isolate with resistance or elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) to greater than or equal to two classes of antimicrobials is classified as MDR and an isolate with elevated MICs to greater than or equal to three classes of antimicrobials is classified as XDR. The MIC is the lowest antimicrobial concentration that inhibits growth of bacteria in the laboratory and rising MICs – evidence that higher levels of an antibiotic are needed to stop bacterial growth – can be an early indicator that resistance is emerging.

More than 150,000 gonococcal isolates were tested between 1987 and 2016. The first isolates with elevated MICs to cephalosporins and macrolides were identified in 1998, and since 2011, MDR resistance rates have hovered around 1%. In 2016, the rate was 1.1%, down from 1.3% in 2011. A single XDR isolate with resistance to fluoroquinolones with elevated MICs to both cephalosporins and macrolides was identified in 2011.

One could look at these data and ask if this is a “glass half full or half empty” situation, but I propose that clinicians and public health officials should not look at these data and be reassured that rates of MDR-gonorrhea remained stable between 2010 and 2016. According to a recent surveillance report released by the CDC, the absolute number of cases of gonorrhea has continued to rise. In 2017, there were 555,608 cases reported in the United States, a 67% increase since 2013. If we assume that rates of resistance in 2017 were similar to those in 2016, that’s more than 5,000 cases of MDR-gonorrhea in a single year.

“That’s bad,” one of my dining companions agreed. “But is gonorrhea really a pediatric issue?”

To answer that question, we just have to look at the numbers. According to the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the percentage of high school students who had ever had sex was approximately 40% and about 10% of students had four or more lifetime partners. More than 45% of sexually active students denied the use of a condom during the last sexual intercourse. Certainly, that puts many teenagers at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that public health authorities report that half of all new STIs occur in individuals aged 15-24 years. Moreover, 25% of sexually active adolescent girls contract at least one STI.

Gonorrhea is the second most commonly reported notifiable disease in the United States, and according to the CDC, rates of disease in 2017 were highest among adolescents and young adults. In females specifically, the highest rates of gonorrhea were observed among those aged 20-24 years (684.8 cases per 100,000 females) and 15-19 years (557.4 cases per 100,000 females).

It makes sense that pediatricians and parents advocate for making the reduction of gonorrhea transmission rates a public health priority. We also need to recognize that prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment are critical. Since 2015, dual therapy with ceftriaxone and azithromycin is the only CDC-recommended treatment for gonorrhea.

At that dinner party, my closest friend, who also happens to be a pediatrician, rolled her eyes and shot me look that I’m sure meant, “Nobody really wants to talk about gonorrhea over dessert.” Still, because she is a good friend she said, “So basically you’re saying that millions of teenagers are getting infected with a form of gonorrhea that takes at least two antibiotics to treat, and if this keeps up, we may see kids with untreatable infection. Now that is scary.”

I kept quiet after that but I wanted to mention that in 2017, less than 85% of patients diagnosed with gonorrhea at selected surveillance sites received the recommended treatment with two antibiotics. Patients with inadequately treated gonorrhea are at risk for a host of sequelae. Women can develop pelvic inflammatory disease, abscesses, chronic pelvic pain, and damage of the fallopian tubes that can lead to infertility. Men can develop epididymitis, which occasionally results in infertility. Rarely, N. gonorrhoeae can spread to the blood and cause life-threatening infection. Of course, patients who aren’t treated appropriately may continue to spread the bacteria. Scary? You bet.

For pediatricians who need a refresher course in the treatment of STIs, there are free resources available. The CDC’s 2015 STD Treatment Guidelines are available in a free app; the app contains a nice refresher on taking a sexual history. There also is a print version, wall chart, and pocket guide. Providers also may want to check out the National STD Curriculum offered by the University of Washington STD Prevention Training Center and the University of Washington. Visit https://www.std.uw.edu/.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

I think the question was intended as polite, dinner party chit chat ... maybe an attempt by a gracious hostess to make sure everyone was engaged in conversation.

“So what pediatric infectious disease should parents be most worried about?” she asked me.

I’ll admit that a couple of perfectly respectable and noncontroversial possibilities crossed my mind before I answered.

Acute flaccid myelitis? Measles?

When I replied, “gonorrhea,” conversation at the table pretty much stopped.

Let me explain. Acute flaccid myelitis is a polio-like neurologic condition that has been grabbing headlines. Yes, it is concerning that most cases have occurred in children and some affected children are left with long-term deficits. Technically though, AFM is a neurologic rather than an infectious disease. When cases occur, we suspect a viral infection but according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, no pathogen has been consistently identified from the spinal fluid of infected patients. From August 2014 to September 2018, the CDC received information on 368 confirmed cases, so AFM fortunately is still rare.

News reports describe measles outbreaks raging in Europe – more than 41,000 cases so far this year, and 40 deaths – and warn that the United States could be next. But let’s be honest: We have a safe and effective vaccine for measles and outbreaks like this don’t happen when individuals are appropriately immunized. Parents, immunize your children. If you are lucky enough to be traveling to Europe with your baby, remember that MMR vaccine is indicated for 6- to 11-month olds, but it doesn’t count in the 2-dose series.

But gonorrhea?

In 2017, the World Health Organization included Neisseria gonorrhoeae on its list of bacteria that pose the greatest threat to human health and for which new antibiotics are urgently needed. The popular media are calling N. gonorrhoeae one of the new “superbugs.” Globally, patients are being diagnosed with strains of gonorrhea that are resistant to all commonly used antibiotics. As reported during IDWeek 2018 this October, patients also are being diagnosed in the United States.

CDC

Sancta St. Cyr, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and her colleagues reported data from the Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP) and trends in multidrug resistant (MDR) and extensively-drug resistant (XDR) gonorrhea in the United States. A gonococcal isolate with resistance or elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) to greater than or equal to two classes of antimicrobials is classified as MDR and an isolate with elevated MICs to greater than or equal to three classes of antimicrobials is classified as XDR. The MIC is the lowest antimicrobial concentration that inhibits growth of bacteria in the laboratory and rising MICs – evidence that higher levels of an antibiotic are needed to stop bacterial growth – can be an early indicator that resistance is emerging.

More than 150,000 gonococcal isolates were tested between 1987 and 2016. The first isolates with elevated MICs to cephalosporins and macrolides were identified in 1998, and since 2011, MDR resistance rates have hovered around 1%. In 2016, the rate was 1.1%, down from 1.3% in 2011. A single XDR isolate with resistance to fluoroquinolones with elevated MICs to both cephalosporins and macrolides was identified in 2011.

One could look at these data and ask if this is a “glass half full or half empty” situation, but I propose that clinicians and public health officials should not look at these data and be reassured that rates of MDR-gonorrhea remained stable between 2010 and 2016. According to a recent surveillance report released by the CDC, the absolute number of cases of gonorrhea has continued to rise. In 2017, there were 555,608 cases reported in the United States, a 67% increase since 2013. If we assume that rates of resistance in 2017 were similar to those in 2016, that’s more than 5,000 cases of MDR-gonorrhea in a single year.

“That’s bad,” one of my dining companions agreed. “But is gonorrhea really a pediatric issue?”

To answer that question, we just have to look at the numbers. According to the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the percentage of high school students who had ever had sex was approximately 40% and about 10% of students had four or more lifetime partners. More than 45% of sexually active students denied the use of a condom during the last sexual intercourse. Certainly, that puts many teenagers at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that public health authorities report that half of all new STIs occur in individuals aged 15-24 years. Moreover, 25% of sexually active adolescent girls contract at least one STI.

Gonorrhea is the second most commonly reported notifiable disease in the United States, and according to the CDC, rates of disease in 2017 were highest among adolescents and young adults. In females specifically, the highest rates of gonorrhea were observed among those aged 20-24 years (684.8 cases per 100,000 females) and 15-19 years (557.4 cases per 100,000 females).

It makes sense that pediatricians and parents advocate for making the reduction of gonorrhea transmission rates a public health priority. We also need to recognize that prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment are critical. Since 2015, dual therapy with ceftriaxone and azithromycin is the only CDC-recommended treatment for gonorrhea.

At that dinner party, my closest friend, who also happens to be a pediatrician, rolled her eyes and shot me look that I’m sure meant, “Nobody really wants to talk about gonorrhea over dessert.” Still, because she is a good friend she said, “So basically you’re saying that millions of teenagers are getting infected with a form of gonorrhea that takes at least two antibiotics to treat, and if this keeps up, we may see kids with untreatable infection. Now that is scary.”

I kept quiet after that but I wanted to mention that in 2017, less than 85% of patients diagnosed with gonorrhea at selected surveillance sites received the recommended treatment with two antibiotics. Patients with inadequately treated gonorrhea are at risk for a host of sequelae. Women can develop pelvic inflammatory disease, abscesses, chronic pelvic pain, and damage of the fallopian tubes that can lead to infertility. Men can develop epididymitis, which occasionally results in infertility. Rarely, N. gonorrhoeae can spread to the blood and cause life-threatening infection. Of course, patients who aren’t treated appropriately may continue to spread the bacteria. Scary? You bet.

For pediatricians who need a refresher course in the treatment of STIs, there are free resources available. The CDC’s 2015 STD Treatment Guidelines are available in a free app; the app contains a nice refresher on taking a sexual history. There also is a print version, wall chart, and pocket guide. Providers also may want to check out the National STD Curriculum offered by the University of Washington STD Prevention Training Center and the University of Washington. Visit https://www.std.uw.edu/.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].