MDedge Pediatrics

MI. HTN. hx. Although these abbreviations might make it easier for physicians and other health care professionals to create and consume clinical documentation, the shorthand confuses patients, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers, who conducted clinical trials at three hospitals, found that expansion of 10 common medical abbreviations and acronyms in patient health records significantly increased overall comprehension.

Corresponding author Lisa Grossman Liu, PhD, MD, of Columbia University, New York, told this news organization that “comprehension of abbreviations was much lower than we expected and much lower than the clinicians who participated in this study expected.”

This discovery is particularly relevant in this era of digital care, where providers are now communicating with patients electronically more than ever before – and are required by rules emanating from the 21st Century Cures Act to provide online access to electronic health records.
 

Using elongated terms

Although the study found that expansion of medical abbreviations and acronyms can improve patient understanding, identifying all of the medical abbreviations that exist is difficult because the terms vary by specialty and geography. The fact that many abbreviations and acronyms have multiple meanings complicates matters even more. For example, the abbreviation PA has 128 possible meanings, Dr. Grossman Liu pointed out.

Technology, fortunately, has advanced in the last few years and is on the cusp of providing a solution. Artificial intelligence systems could help to develop large compendiums of abbreviations and acronyms and then machine learning could elongate the words.

“We’re almost to the point where we have these automated systems that can actually expand abbreviations pretty well and with a great degree of accuracy and ... where those can actually be used in medicine to help with patient communication,” Dr. Grossman Liu said.

Such intervention, however, is not a cure-all.

“There are abbreviations that are really hard to understand even after you expand them, such as MI for myocardial infarction, which is really a tough term all around. It means heart attack. So even if you tell patients, MI means myocardial infarction, they’re still not going to understand it,” Dr. Grossman Liu said.

On the flip side, patients are likely to understand some abbreviations such as hrs, which stands for hours, without elongating the words.
 

Moving from in-person to online communication

A look at the evolution of clinical documentation explains how this abbreviation problem came to fruition. Prior to this digital age where providers communicate with patients through portals, secure messaging, and other electronic methods, patients and providers would talk face to face. Now, however, electronic written communication is becoming the norm.

“We are not only seeing direct written communication through things like messaging systems or email, but also patients are now reading their medical records online and you can consider that as a form of communication,” Dr. Grossman Liu said. “It’s really interesting that the electronic health record itself has essentially become a medium for communication between patients and providers when previously it was only a way for providers to communicate with themselves and document patient care. So, clinicians use abbreviations because they aren’t intending for patients to see the records.”

Requiring physicians to use complete words in clinical documentation now that electronic records are relied on for patient communication, however, is not a practical solution.

“Abbreviations are so commonly used because they are more efficient to read and more efficient to write. We really shouldn’t be putting the onus on providers to spell out all the abbreviations in their notes. That’s realistically not going to work, because it compromises clinical efficiency,” Dr. Grossman Liu said.

While physicians should not be forced to use complete words in documentation, they should be wary of patients’ unfamiliarity with abbreviations as they communicate in person.

“I use terms like ED constantly when I talk to patients, and it turns out that only 67% of patients understand what you’re talking about when you say ED in reference to the emergency department. So it’s important to be mindful of that,” Dr. Grossman Liu concluded.

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

MI. HTN. hx. Although these abbreviations might make it easier for physicians and other health care professionals to create and consume clinical documentation, the shorthand confuses patients, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers, who conducted clinical trials at three hospitals, found that expansion of 10 common medical abbreviations and acronyms in patient health records significantly increased overall comprehension.

Corresponding author Lisa Grossman Liu, PhD, MD, of Columbia University, New York, told this news organization that “comprehension of abbreviations was much lower than we expected and much lower than the clinicians who participated in this study expected.”

This discovery is particularly relevant in this era of digital care, where providers are now communicating with patients electronically more than ever before – and are required by rules emanating from the 21st Century Cures Act to provide online access to electronic health records.
 

Using elongated terms

Although the study found that expansion of medical abbreviations and acronyms can improve patient understanding, identifying all of the medical abbreviations that exist is difficult because the terms vary by specialty and geography. The fact that many abbreviations and acronyms have multiple meanings complicates matters even more. For example, the abbreviation PA has 128 possible meanings, Dr. Grossman Liu pointed out.

Technology, fortunately, has advanced in the last few years and is on the cusp of providing a solution. Artificial intelligence systems could help to develop large compendiums of abbreviations and acronyms and then machine learning could elongate the words.

“We’re almost to the point where we have these automated systems that can actually expand abbreviations pretty well and with a great degree of accuracy and ... where those can actually be used in medicine to help with patient communication,” Dr. Grossman Liu said.

Such intervention, however, is not a cure-all.

“There are abbreviations that are really hard to understand even after you expand them, such as MI for myocardial infarction, which is really a tough term all around. It means heart attack. So even if you tell patients, MI means myocardial infarction, they’re still not going to understand it,” Dr. Grossman Liu said.

On the flip side, patients are likely to understand some abbreviations such as hrs, which stands for hours, without elongating the words.
 

Moving from in-person to online communication

A look at the evolution of clinical documentation explains how this abbreviation problem came to fruition. Prior to this digital age where providers communicate with patients through portals, secure messaging, and other electronic methods, patients and providers would talk face to face. Now, however, electronic written communication is becoming the norm.

“We are not only seeing direct written communication through things like messaging systems or email, but also patients are now reading their medical records online and you can consider that as a form of communication,” Dr. Grossman Liu said. “It’s really interesting that the electronic health record itself has essentially become a medium for communication between patients and providers when previously it was only a way for providers to communicate with themselves and document patient care. So, clinicians use abbreviations because they aren’t intending for patients to see the records.”

Requiring physicians to use complete words in clinical documentation now that electronic records are relied on for patient communication, however, is not a practical solution.

“Abbreviations are so commonly used because they are more efficient to read and more efficient to write. We really shouldn’t be putting the onus on providers to spell out all the abbreviations in their notes. That’s realistically not going to work, because it compromises clinical efficiency,” Dr. Grossman Liu said.

While physicians should not be forced to use complete words in documentation, they should be wary of patients’ unfamiliarity with abbreviations as they communicate in person.

“I use terms like ED constantly when I talk to patients, and it turns out that only 67% of patients understand what you’re talking about when you say ED in reference to the emergency department. So it’s important to be mindful of that,” Dr. Grossman Liu concluded.

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

MI. HTN. hx. Although these abbreviations might make it easier for physicians and other health care professionals to create and consume clinical documentation, the shorthand confuses patients, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers, who conducted clinical trials at three hospitals, found that expansion of 10 common medical abbreviations and acronyms in patient health records significantly increased overall comprehension.

Corresponding author Lisa Grossman Liu, PhD, MD, of Columbia University, New York, told this news organization that “comprehension of abbreviations was much lower than we expected and much lower than the clinicians who participated in this study expected.”

This discovery is particularly relevant in this era of digital care, where providers are now communicating with patients electronically more than ever before – and are required by rules emanating from the 21st Century Cures Act to provide online access to electronic health records.
 

Using elongated terms

Although the study found that expansion of medical abbreviations and acronyms can improve patient understanding, identifying all of the medical abbreviations that exist is difficult because the terms vary by specialty and geography. The fact that many abbreviations and acronyms have multiple meanings complicates matters even more. For example, the abbreviation PA has 128 possible meanings, Dr. Grossman Liu pointed out.

Technology, fortunately, has advanced in the last few years and is on the cusp of providing a solution. Artificial intelligence systems could help to develop large compendiums of abbreviations and acronyms and then machine learning could elongate the words.

“We’re almost to the point where we have these automated systems that can actually expand abbreviations pretty well and with a great degree of accuracy and ... where those can actually be used in medicine to help with patient communication,” Dr. Grossman Liu said.

Such intervention, however, is not a cure-all.

“There are abbreviations that are really hard to understand even after you expand them, such as MI for myocardial infarction, which is really a tough term all around. It means heart attack. So even if you tell patients, MI means myocardial infarction, they’re still not going to understand it,” Dr. Grossman Liu said.

On the flip side, patients are likely to understand some abbreviations such as hrs, which stands for hours, without elongating the words.
 

Moving from in-person to online communication

A look at the evolution of clinical documentation explains how this abbreviation problem came to fruition. Prior to this digital age where providers communicate with patients through portals, secure messaging, and other electronic methods, patients and providers would talk face to face. Now, however, electronic written communication is becoming the norm.

“We are not only seeing direct written communication through things like messaging systems or email, but also patients are now reading their medical records online and you can consider that as a form of communication,” Dr. Grossman Liu said. “It’s really interesting that the electronic health record itself has essentially become a medium for communication between patients and providers when previously it was only a way for providers to communicate with themselves and document patient care. So, clinicians use abbreviations because they aren’t intending for patients to see the records.”

Requiring physicians to use complete words in clinical documentation now that electronic records are relied on for patient communication, however, is not a practical solution.

“Abbreviations are so commonly used because they are more efficient to read and more efficient to write. We really shouldn’t be putting the onus on providers to spell out all the abbreviations in their notes. That’s realistically not going to work, because it compromises clinical efficiency,” Dr. Grossman Liu said.

While physicians should not be forced to use complete words in documentation, they should be wary of patients’ unfamiliarity with abbreviations as they communicate in person.

“I use terms like ED constantly when I talk to patients, and it turns out that only 67% of patients understand what you’re talking about when you say ED in reference to the emergency department. So it’s important to be mindful of that,” Dr. Grossman Liu concluded.

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

Only 43% of early child care programs in the United States met guidelines for both sufficient opportunities outdoors and 60-90 minutes of physical activity daily, according to researchers.

To date, no national study has examined these factors, according to Maria H. Boyle, MS, RD, with Abt Associates in Cambridge, Mass., and colleagues. They conducted the study published online in Pediatrics.

The results came “even employing a relatively lenient interpretation of the guidance,” the authors noted, and have particular significance because about 60% of preschool children in the United States are enrolled in center-based care.

Nearly three-fourths of the programs (74%) met the outdoor-opportunities guideline, but only 50% met the physical activity guideline.

Caring for Our Children (CFOC) guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends at least two outdoor physical activity opportunities (weather permitting) and at least 60-90 minutes allotted for moderate and vigorous physical activities each day during care for children aged 1-6 years.

Still, “children are frequently observed to be sedentary or inactive when in child care settings,” the authors wrote.

They found that some of the main barriers included weather and staff not joining outdoor play.

The researchers used the Study of Nutrition and Activity in Child Care Settings (SNACS), which assesses opportunities for physical activity opportunities and sedentary occasions for children aged 1-5 years at programs participating in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Child and Adult Care Food Program.

Their sample included 227 classrooms: 96 in child care centers and 131 in Head Start programs.

On 1 day (from February to July 2017) an observer in each sampled classroom recorded whether there were designated outdoor and indoor spaces for physical activity, whether that was a playground or other outdoor play space, such as a field, grassy area, or other open area, or parking lot used for play.

They looked for a separate indoor room or gym for active play and how many minutes the class spent in these spaces, and whether there were physical activity facilitators. They made note of barriers, including weather that was too hot or too cold or involved precipitation.

The data show that while almost all programs observed (97%) had dedicated outdoor play space, only 34% had a separate dedicated indoor play space – a gym, for example, or another room separate from main classrooms.

“Of those without a separate indoor play space, virtually all (99.8%) indicated a classroom was available for indoor play.”


 

Weather and staff not participating in play are barriers

After adjustment for program characteristics, weather barriers resulted in an average 74 fewer minutes daily allotted to physical activity (P < .001).

Another large barrier was staff not participating in play. That was associated with 31 fewer minutes per day allotted for physical activity (P < .001).

“Given the critical role of child care staff as gatekeepers in allowing and encouraging physical activity, it is as important to measure sedentary time when children are not permitted to be active as to measure time when they have opportunity to be active,” the authors wrote. “Best practice guidelines emphasize limiting time children are expected to stay seated during care.”

William Roberts, MD, professor in the department of family medicine and community health at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, said in an interview that the findings in this paper help quantify a public health concern as inactivity early sets a harmful precedent.

“Inactive kids too often become inactive adults subject to the long list of noncommunicable chronic diseases associated with lack of regular exercise,” he said.

Lack of movement in childhood, in a program setting or at home, contributes to the obesity epidemic, he pointed out.

“They also do not develop the motor and social skills associated with free play and physical activity,” he said.

He said the findings in this study can guide questions when choosing a child care program. He noted that parents should ask: “What are the opportunities for free play and physical activity?”

The authors and Dr. Roberts declared no relevant financial relationships.

Only 43% of early child care programs in the United States met guidelines for both sufficient opportunities outdoors and 60-90 minutes of physical activity daily, according to researchers.

To date, no national study has examined these factors, according to Maria H. Boyle, MS, RD, with Abt Associates in Cambridge, Mass., and colleagues. They conducted the study published online in Pediatrics.

The results came “even employing a relatively lenient interpretation of the guidance,” the authors noted, and have particular significance because about 60% of preschool children in the United States are enrolled in center-based care.

Nearly three-fourths of the programs (74%) met the outdoor-opportunities guideline, but only 50% met the physical activity guideline.

Caring for Our Children (CFOC) guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends at least two outdoor physical activity opportunities (weather permitting) and at least 60-90 minutes allotted for moderate and vigorous physical activities each day during care for children aged 1-6 years.

Still, “children are frequently observed to be sedentary or inactive when in child care settings,” the authors wrote.

They found that some of the main barriers included weather and staff not joining outdoor play.

The researchers used the Study of Nutrition and Activity in Child Care Settings (SNACS), which assesses opportunities for physical activity opportunities and sedentary occasions for children aged 1-5 years at programs participating in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Child and Adult Care Food Program.

Their sample included 227 classrooms: 96 in child care centers and 131 in Head Start programs.

On 1 day (from February to July 2017) an observer in each sampled classroom recorded whether there were designated outdoor and indoor spaces for physical activity, whether that was a playground or other outdoor play space, such as a field, grassy area, or other open area, or parking lot used for play.

They looked for a separate indoor room or gym for active play and how many minutes the class spent in these spaces, and whether there were physical activity facilitators. They made note of barriers, including weather that was too hot or too cold or involved precipitation.

The data show that while almost all programs observed (97%) had dedicated outdoor play space, only 34% had a separate dedicated indoor play space – a gym, for example, or another room separate from main classrooms.

“Of those without a separate indoor play space, virtually all (99.8%) indicated a classroom was available for indoor play.”


 

Weather and staff not participating in play are barriers

After adjustment for program characteristics, weather barriers resulted in an average 74 fewer minutes daily allotted to physical activity (P < .001).

Another large barrier was staff not participating in play. That was associated with 31 fewer minutes per day allotted for physical activity (P < .001).

“Given the critical role of child care staff as gatekeepers in allowing and encouraging physical activity, it is as important to measure sedentary time when children are not permitted to be active as to measure time when they have opportunity to be active,” the authors wrote. “Best practice guidelines emphasize limiting time children are expected to stay seated during care.”

William Roberts, MD, professor in the department of family medicine and community health at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, said in an interview that the findings in this paper help quantify a public health concern as inactivity early sets a harmful precedent.

“Inactive kids too often become inactive adults subject to the long list of noncommunicable chronic diseases associated with lack of regular exercise,” he said.

Lack of movement in childhood, in a program setting or at home, contributes to the obesity epidemic, he pointed out.

“They also do not develop the motor and social skills associated with free play and physical activity,” he said.

He said the findings in this study can guide questions when choosing a child care program. He noted that parents should ask: “What are the opportunities for free play and physical activity?”

The authors and Dr. Roberts declared no relevant financial relationships.

Only 43% of early child care programs in the United States met guidelines for both sufficient opportunities outdoors and 60-90 minutes of physical activity daily, according to researchers.

To date, no national study has examined these factors, according to Maria H. Boyle, MS, RD, with Abt Associates in Cambridge, Mass., and colleagues. They conducted the study published online in Pediatrics.

The results came “even employing a relatively lenient interpretation of the guidance,” the authors noted, and have particular significance because about 60% of preschool children in the United States are enrolled in center-based care.

Nearly three-fourths of the programs (74%) met the outdoor-opportunities guideline, but only 50% met the physical activity guideline.

Caring for Our Children (CFOC) guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends at least two outdoor physical activity opportunities (weather permitting) and at least 60-90 minutes allotted for moderate and vigorous physical activities each day during care for children aged 1-6 years.

Still, “children are frequently observed to be sedentary or inactive when in child care settings,” the authors wrote.

They found that some of the main barriers included weather and staff not joining outdoor play.

The researchers used the Study of Nutrition and Activity in Child Care Settings (SNACS), which assesses opportunities for physical activity opportunities and sedentary occasions for children aged 1-5 years at programs participating in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Child and Adult Care Food Program.

Their sample included 227 classrooms: 96 in child care centers and 131 in Head Start programs.

On 1 day (from February to July 2017) an observer in each sampled classroom recorded whether there were designated outdoor and indoor spaces for physical activity, whether that was a playground or other outdoor play space, such as a field, grassy area, or other open area, or parking lot used for play.

They looked for a separate indoor room or gym for active play and how many minutes the class spent in these spaces, and whether there were physical activity facilitators. They made note of barriers, including weather that was too hot or too cold or involved precipitation.

The data show that while almost all programs observed (97%) had dedicated outdoor play space, only 34% had a separate dedicated indoor play space – a gym, for example, or another room separate from main classrooms.

“Of those without a separate indoor play space, virtually all (99.8%) indicated a classroom was available for indoor play.”


 

Weather and staff not participating in play are barriers

After adjustment for program characteristics, weather barriers resulted in an average 74 fewer minutes daily allotted to physical activity (P < .001).

Another large barrier was staff not participating in play. That was associated with 31 fewer minutes per day allotted for physical activity (P < .001).

“Given the critical role of child care staff as gatekeepers in allowing and encouraging physical activity, it is as important to measure sedentary time when children are not permitted to be active as to measure time when they have opportunity to be active,” the authors wrote. “Best practice guidelines emphasize limiting time children are expected to stay seated during care.”

William Roberts, MD, professor in the department of family medicine and community health at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, said in an interview that the findings in this paper help quantify a public health concern as inactivity early sets a harmful precedent.

“Inactive kids too often become inactive adults subject to the long list of noncommunicable chronic diseases associated with lack of regular exercise,” he said.

Lack of movement in childhood, in a program setting or at home, contributes to the obesity epidemic, he pointed out.

“They also do not develop the motor and social skills associated with free play and physical activity,” he said.

He said the findings in this study can guide questions when choosing a child care program. He noted that parents should ask: “What are the opportunities for free play and physical activity?”

The authors and Dr. Roberts declared no relevant financial relationships.

The latest increase in new child COVID-19 cases seems to be picking up steam, rising by 50% in the last week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The new-case count was over 93,000 for the week of May 6-12, compared with 62,000 the previous week. That 50% week-to-week change follows increases of 17%, 44%, 12%, and 28% since the nationwide weekly total fell to its low point for the year (25,915) in the beginning of April, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

By comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put the total number of cases in children aged 0-17 at 12.7 million, although that figure is based on a cumulative number of 73.4 million cases among all ages, which is well short of the reported total of almost 82.4 million as of May 16. COVID cases in children have led to 1,536 deaths so far, the CDC said.

The recent upward trend in new cases also can be seen in the CDC’s data, which show the weekly rate rising from 35 per 100,000 population on March 26 to 102 per 100,000 on May 7 in children aged 0-14 years, with commensurate increases seen among older children over the same period. In turn, the rate of new admissions for children aged 0-17 has gone from a low of 0.13 per 100,000 as late as April 10 up to 0.23 on May 13, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

One thing not going up these days is vaccinations among the youngest eligible children. The number of 5- to 11-year-olds receiving their initial dose was down to 40,000 for the week of May 5-11, the fewest since the vaccine was approved for that age group. For a change of pace, the number increased among children aged 12-17, as 37,000 got initial vaccinations that week, compared with 29,000 a week earlier, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report.

[email protected]

The latest increase in new child COVID-19 cases seems to be picking up steam, rising by 50% in the last week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The new-case count was over 93,000 for the week of May 6-12, compared with 62,000 the previous week. That 50% week-to-week change follows increases of 17%, 44%, 12%, and 28% since the nationwide weekly total fell to its low point for the year (25,915) in the beginning of April, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

By comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put the total number of cases in children aged 0-17 at 12.7 million, although that figure is based on a cumulative number of 73.4 million cases among all ages, which is well short of the reported total of almost 82.4 million as of May 16. COVID cases in children have led to 1,536 deaths so far, the CDC said.

The recent upward trend in new cases also can be seen in the CDC’s data, which show the weekly rate rising from 35 per 100,000 population on March 26 to 102 per 100,000 on May 7 in children aged 0-14 years, with commensurate increases seen among older children over the same period. In turn, the rate of new admissions for children aged 0-17 has gone from a low of 0.13 per 100,000 as late as April 10 up to 0.23 on May 13, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

One thing not going up these days is vaccinations among the youngest eligible children. The number of 5- to 11-year-olds receiving their initial dose was down to 40,000 for the week of May 5-11, the fewest since the vaccine was approved for that age group. For a change of pace, the number increased among children aged 12-17, as 37,000 got initial vaccinations that week, compared with 29,000 a week earlier, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report.

[email protected]

The latest increase in new child COVID-19 cases seems to be picking up steam, rising by 50% in the last week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The new-case count was over 93,000 for the week of May 6-12, compared with 62,000 the previous week. That 50% week-to-week change follows increases of 17%, 44%, 12%, and 28% since the nationwide weekly total fell to its low point for the year (25,915) in the beginning of April, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

By comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put the total number of cases in children aged 0-17 at 12.7 million, although that figure is based on a cumulative number of 73.4 million cases among all ages, which is well short of the reported total of almost 82.4 million as of May 16. COVID cases in children have led to 1,536 deaths so far, the CDC said.

The recent upward trend in new cases also can be seen in the CDC’s data, which show the weekly rate rising from 35 per 100,000 population on March 26 to 102 per 100,000 on May 7 in children aged 0-14 years, with commensurate increases seen among older children over the same period. In turn, the rate of new admissions for children aged 0-17 has gone from a low of 0.13 per 100,000 as late as April 10 up to 0.23 on May 13, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

One thing not going up these days is vaccinations among the youngest eligible children. The number of 5- to 11-year-olds receiving their initial dose was down to 40,000 for the week of May 5-11, the fewest since the vaccine was approved for that age group. For a change of pace, the number increased among children aged 12-17, as 37,000 got initial vaccinations that week, compared with 29,000 a week earlier, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report.

[email protected]

Before the pandemic hit in 2019, Pooja Aysola, MD, considered herself lucky because she could tap into telehealth for neurology consults in her work as an emergency department physician.  

“We would wheel in a computer screen with a neurologist on board every time we had a suspected stroke patient. And I was able to talk directly to the neurologist about my patient’s symptoms. And it was great,” Dr. Aysola said.

The pandemic, however, prompted the need for telehealth in many situations beyond specialty care. As such, investment exploded over the past few years.

“We’re seeing telehealth across all specialties ... more than half of clinicians are now saying that they do believe that virtual visits will surpass in-person visits for primary care needs,” said Dr. Aysola, who also serves as senior director, clinical operations at Wheel, a Texas-based telehealth company.

Dr. Aysola spoke during an American Telemedicine Association conference panel addressing how COVID prompted an uptick in telehealth investment and utilization and how such virtual care is likely to evolve moving forward.

Nathaniel Lacktman, a partner at law firm Foley & Lardner, agreed with Dr. Aysola’s assessment of the market.

“The appetite for virtual care has become voracious,” said Mr. Lacktman, who chairs the firm’s telemedicine and digital health team. “It reminds me in some ways of taking my kids out to dinner and saying, ‘Try this new food.’ They’re like, ‘No, I won’t like it.’ They finally get a little taste and they’re like, ‘This is amazing.’”

While there is no doubt that stakeholders – from innovators to investors to providers to patients – will want more than just a taste of telehealth in the future, panelists addressed if this undeniable demand for virtual care was simply a short-term response to the pandemic or if there is a long-term desire to fundamentally change how care is delivered.
 

Expanding on the pandemic-driven ‘sandbox’

While the uptick in telehealth investment and utilization is not expected to continue at such jarring rates in the future, the panelists pointed out that innovation will proceed but perhaps at a different pace.

“The last 3 years have been a sandbox during which the industry was able to experiment,” said Mr. Lacktman. “What we’re going to see more of even post pandemic is building upon that experimental sandbox and creating models that aren’t just high growth and really quick but that are sustainable and meaningful.”

As such, patients and providers won’t be looking for telehealth to simply provide access to care but to provide a full scope of services while also improving quality.   

Rachel Stillman, vice president of 7wireVentures, a Chicago-based venture capital firm, also expects interest in telehealth to continue but at a less frenetic pace. In 2021, the industry witnessed nearly $31 billion of venture financing directed towards digital health companies, she said.

“Now, Q1 2022 has had a little bit of a slower start. But with that said, we still have invested $6 billion in early stage companies. So ... we’re seeing some initial signs perhaps of – I don’t want to call it a slowdown – but increased discipline,” Ms. Stillman said.

Start-up companies will need to carefully position themselves for success in this post pandemic environment. “Ultimately, it really goes down to making sure your fundamentals are strong ... and having a really compelling [return on investment] case for your health plan, your self-insured employer, your health system, or your ultimate buyer,” Ms. Stillman said.

Two models are coming into play as innovation continues, she added. One is a traditional care delivery model whereby a start-up organization is building their own provider network specialized for the conditions or patient populations they are serving.

“Conversely, there are new entrants that are thinking about how they can leverage their insightful and strong technology foundations and platforms for existing provider networks that could benefit from a telemedicine partner,” Ms. Stillman pointed out.

Dr. Aysola added that companies are moving forward strategically to achieve post pandemic success. Some telehealth start-ups, for instance, are “capturing some of the low-hanging fruit, the simple UTIs, the really easy things to treat,” Dr. Aysola said. 

Others are addressing the clinician’s experience. “Over 50% of clinicians have thought about leaving their jobs at some point during the pandemic. And so it’s becoming really clear that focusing on the clinician and the clinician’s needs are just imperative to [creating a] winning model post-pandemic,” Dr. Aysola said.
 

Adapting to the new normal

Health care provider organizations also need to adjust to post pandemic realities. “We work with a number of hospital systems, and it’s astounding how slow they are compared to the start-ups because there’s a lot more constituents; there’s bureaucracy,” Mr. Lacktman said. As a result, “the hospitals are in a more uncomfortable position post pandemic than the start-ups.”

To move forward successfully, these organizations, which are typically risk averse, need to create alignment among legal, compliance, and clinical leaders, Mr. Lacktman advised. 

One of the first decisions that these teams need to make is whether they should proceed on their own or enter into a partnership with a start-up or pursue a merger and acquisition. In addition, some health systems, hospitals, and health plans are even opting to establish their own venture funds.

“Building your own venture fund or even investing ... in companies directly or in other venture funds [are strategies] that health systems might be able to leverage both to accelerate partnerships and also really be on top of key trends,” Ms. Stillman said.

No matter how health care systems invest in and implement telemedicine technologies, though, the need to move quickly is paramount.

Traditional health care systems “don’t always have the luxury of time. Things have to be done pretty quickly in order to remain competitive,” Dr. Aysola concluded. “We’ve found that companies can launch a virtual care offering in a matter of weeks. When in reality, if a traditional health care system were to try to launch it on their own, it could take upwards of 15 months.”

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

Before the pandemic hit in 2019, Pooja Aysola, MD, considered herself lucky because she could tap into telehealth for neurology consults in her work as an emergency department physician.  

“We would wheel in a computer screen with a neurologist on board every time we had a suspected stroke patient. And I was able to talk directly to the neurologist about my patient’s symptoms. And it was great,” Dr. Aysola said.

The pandemic, however, prompted the need for telehealth in many situations beyond specialty care. As such, investment exploded over the past few years.

“We’re seeing telehealth across all specialties ... more than half of clinicians are now saying that they do believe that virtual visits will surpass in-person visits for primary care needs,” said Dr. Aysola, who also serves as senior director, clinical operations at Wheel, a Texas-based telehealth company.

Dr. Aysola spoke during an American Telemedicine Association conference panel addressing how COVID prompted an uptick in telehealth investment and utilization and how such virtual care is likely to evolve moving forward.

Nathaniel Lacktman, a partner at law firm Foley & Lardner, agreed with Dr. Aysola’s assessment of the market.

“The appetite for virtual care has become voracious,” said Mr. Lacktman, who chairs the firm’s telemedicine and digital health team. “It reminds me in some ways of taking my kids out to dinner and saying, ‘Try this new food.’ They’re like, ‘No, I won’t like it.’ They finally get a little taste and they’re like, ‘This is amazing.’”

While there is no doubt that stakeholders – from innovators to investors to providers to patients – will want more than just a taste of telehealth in the future, panelists addressed if this undeniable demand for virtual care was simply a short-term response to the pandemic or if there is a long-term desire to fundamentally change how care is delivered.
 

Expanding on the pandemic-driven ‘sandbox’

While the uptick in telehealth investment and utilization is not expected to continue at such jarring rates in the future, the panelists pointed out that innovation will proceed but perhaps at a different pace.

“The last 3 years have been a sandbox during which the industry was able to experiment,” said Mr. Lacktman. “What we’re going to see more of even post pandemic is building upon that experimental sandbox and creating models that aren’t just high growth and really quick but that are sustainable and meaningful.”

As such, patients and providers won’t be looking for telehealth to simply provide access to care but to provide a full scope of services while also improving quality.   

Rachel Stillman, vice president of 7wireVentures, a Chicago-based venture capital firm, also expects interest in telehealth to continue but at a less frenetic pace. In 2021, the industry witnessed nearly $31 billion of venture financing directed towards digital health companies, she said.

“Now, Q1 2022 has had a little bit of a slower start. But with that said, we still have invested $6 billion in early stage companies. So ... we’re seeing some initial signs perhaps of – I don’t want to call it a slowdown – but increased discipline,” Ms. Stillman said.

Start-up companies will need to carefully position themselves for success in this post pandemic environment. “Ultimately, it really goes down to making sure your fundamentals are strong ... and having a really compelling [return on investment] case for your health plan, your self-insured employer, your health system, or your ultimate buyer,” Ms. Stillman said.

Two models are coming into play as innovation continues, she added. One is a traditional care delivery model whereby a start-up organization is building their own provider network specialized for the conditions or patient populations they are serving.

“Conversely, there are new entrants that are thinking about how they can leverage their insightful and strong technology foundations and platforms for existing provider networks that could benefit from a telemedicine partner,” Ms. Stillman pointed out.

Dr. Aysola added that companies are moving forward strategically to achieve post pandemic success. Some telehealth start-ups, for instance, are “capturing some of the low-hanging fruit, the simple UTIs, the really easy things to treat,” Dr. Aysola said. 

Others are addressing the clinician’s experience. “Over 50% of clinicians have thought about leaving their jobs at some point during the pandemic. And so it’s becoming really clear that focusing on the clinician and the clinician’s needs are just imperative to [creating a] winning model post-pandemic,” Dr. Aysola said.
 

Adapting to the new normal

Health care provider organizations also need to adjust to post pandemic realities. “We work with a number of hospital systems, and it’s astounding how slow they are compared to the start-ups because there’s a lot more constituents; there’s bureaucracy,” Mr. Lacktman said. As a result, “the hospitals are in a more uncomfortable position post pandemic than the start-ups.”

To move forward successfully, these organizations, which are typically risk averse, need to create alignment among legal, compliance, and clinical leaders, Mr. Lacktman advised. 

One of the first decisions that these teams need to make is whether they should proceed on their own or enter into a partnership with a start-up or pursue a merger and acquisition. In addition, some health systems, hospitals, and health plans are even opting to establish their own venture funds.

“Building your own venture fund or even investing ... in companies directly or in other venture funds [are strategies] that health systems might be able to leverage both to accelerate partnerships and also really be on top of key trends,” Ms. Stillman said.

No matter how health care systems invest in and implement telemedicine technologies, though, the need to move quickly is paramount.

Traditional health care systems “don’t always have the luxury of time. Things have to be done pretty quickly in order to remain competitive,” Dr. Aysola concluded. “We’ve found that companies can launch a virtual care offering in a matter of weeks. When in reality, if a traditional health care system were to try to launch it on their own, it could take upwards of 15 months.”

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

Before the pandemic hit in 2019, Pooja Aysola, MD, considered herself lucky because she could tap into telehealth for neurology consults in her work as an emergency department physician.  

“We would wheel in a computer screen with a neurologist on board every time we had a suspected stroke patient. And I was able to talk directly to the neurologist about my patient’s symptoms. And it was great,” Dr. Aysola said.

The pandemic, however, prompted the need for telehealth in many situations beyond specialty care. As such, investment exploded over the past few years.

“We’re seeing telehealth across all specialties ... more than half of clinicians are now saying that they do believe that virtual visits will surpass in-person visits for primary care needs,” said Dr. Aysola, who also serves as senior director, clinical operations at Wheel, a Texas-based telehealth company.

Dr. Aysola spoke during an American Telemedicine Association conference panel addressing how COVID prompted an uptick in telehealth investment and utilization and how such virtual care is likely to evolve moving forward.

Nathaniel Lacktman, a partner at law firm Foley & Lardner, agreed with Dr. Aysola’s assessment of the market.

“The appetite for virtual care has become voracious,” said Mr. Lacktman, who chairs the firm’s telemedicine and digital health team. “It reminds me in some ways of taking my kids out to dinner and saying, ‘Try this new food.’ They’re like, ‘No, I won’t like it.’ They finally get a little taste and they’re like, ‘This is amazing.’”

While there is no doubt that stakeholders – from innovators to investors to providers to patients – will want more than just a taste of telehealth in the future, panelists addressed if this undeniable demand for virtual care was simply a short-term response to the pandemic or if there is a long-term desire to fundamentally change how care is delivered.
 

Expanding on the pandemic-driven ‘sandbox’

While the uptick in telehealth investment and utilization is not expected to continue at such jarring rates in the future, the panelists pointed out that innovation will proceed but perhaps at a different pace.

“The last 3 years have been a sandbox during which the industry was able to experiment,” said Mr. Lacktman. “What we’re going to see more of even post pandemic is building upon that experimental sandbox and creating models that aren’t just high growth and really quick but that are sustainable and meaningful.”

As such, patients and providers won’t be looking for telehealth to simply provide access to care but to provide a full scope of services while also improving quality.   

Rachel Stillman, vice president of 7wireVentures, a Chicago-based venture capital firm, also expects interest in telehealth to continue but at a less frenetic pace. In 2021, the industry witnessed nearly $31 billion of venture financing directed towards digital health companies, she said.

“Now, Q1 2022 has had a little bit of a slower start. But with that said, we still have invested $6 billion in early stage companies. So ... we’re seeing some initial signs perhaps of – I don’t want to call it a slowdown – but increased discipline,” Ms. Stillman said.

Start-up companies will need to carefully position themselves for success in this post pandemic environment. “Ultimately, it really goes down to making sure your fundamentals are strong ... and having a really compelling [return on investment] case for your health plan, your self-insured employer, your health system, or your ultimate buyer,” Ms. Stillman said.

Two models are coming into play as innovation continues, she added. One is a traditional care delivery model whereby a start-up organization is building their own provider network specialized for the conditions or patient populations they are serving.

“Conversely, there are new entrants that are thinking about how they can leverage their insightful and strong technology foundations and platforms for existing provider networks that could benefit from a telemedicine partner,” Ms. Stillman pointed out.

Dr. Aysola added that companies are moving forward strategically to achieve post pandemic success. Some telehealth start-ups, for instance, are “capturing some of the low-hanging fruit, the simple UTIs, the really easy things to treat,” Dr. Aysola said. 

Others are addressing the clinician’s experience. “Over 50% of clinicians have thought about leaving their jobs at some point during the pandemic. And so it’s becoming really clear that focusing on the clinician and the clinician’s needs are just imperative to [creating a] winning model post-pandemic,” Dr. Aysola said.
 

Adapting to the new normal

Health care provider organizations also need to adjust to post pandemic realities. “We work with a number of hospital systems, and it’s astounding how slow they are compared to the start-ups because there’s a lot more constituents; there’s bureaucracy,” Mr. Lacktman said. As a result, “the hospitals are in a more uncomfortable position post pandemic than the start-ups.”

To move forward successfully, these organizations, which are typically risk averse, need to create alignment among legal, compliance, and clinical leaders, Mr. Lacktman advised. 

One of the first decisions that these teams need to make is whether they should proceed on their own or enter into a partnership with a start-up or pursue a merger and acquisition. In addition, some health systems, hospitals, and health plans are even opting to establish their own venture funds.

“Building your own venture fund or even investing ... in companies directly or in other venture funds [are strategies] that health systems might be able to leverage both to accelerate partnerships and also really be on top of key trends,” Ms. Stillman said.

No matter how health care systems invest in and implement telemedicine technologies, though, the need to move quickly is paramount.

Traditional health care systems “don’t always have the luxury of time. Things have to be done pretty quickly in order to remain competitive,” Dr. Aysola concluded. “We’ve found that companies can launch a virtual care offering in a matter of weeks. When in reality, if a traditional health care system were to try to launch it on their own, it could take upwards of 15 months.”

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

Twelve years after the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program was introduced in the United States, the overall prevalence of cancer-causing HPV strains covered by the vaccine dropped by 85% among females – 90% among vaccinated females and 74% among unvaccinated females – a strong sign of herd immunity, a new analysis of a nationally representative database is showing.

“HPV vaccination is working well,” Hannah Rosenblum, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization in an email.

“Twelve years after introduction of HPV vaccination in the United States, national data demonstrate increasing impact among females and strong herd effects among unvaccinated females,” she added. “[Although] vaccination coverage and completion of the recommended dose in the United States is lower than coverage with other adolescent vaccinations, HPV vaccination is the best way to prevent HPV infections that can lead to several cancers in both females and males.”

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

NHANES survey

The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to examine the four HPV types in the quadrivalent vaccine before 2003 and 2006 (the pre-vaccine era) and then again between 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018 (the vaccine era). For females, they analyzed demographic and HPV prevalence data across each 4-year era.

“Analyses were limited to sexually experienced participants, to ensure that all those included had an opportunity for HPV exposure, and to participants aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected cervicovaginal specimens,” the authors explain.

This resulted in a sample size of 3,197 females. Demographic and HPV prevalence data were also collected from males but only during the 2013-2016 era, because those are the only years for which male HPV typing data are available in NHANES. Again, analyses were limited to sexually experienced males aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected penile specimens, which resulted in a sample size of 661 males.

Over the 12 years of follow-up for females, there was a steady increase in females reporting having received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine – from slightly over 25% during 2007-12 to 59% during 2015-2018. The percentage of males who reported having at least one HPV dose also increased, from 29.5% in 2016 to 34.5% in 2018.

During the earliest vaccine era (2007-2010), the prevalence of the four HPV strains covered by the vaccine was 7.3% among vaccinated females, compared with 20.4% among unvaccinated females. “By 2015 to 2018, the prevalence was 2.8% (prevalence ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.39). The prevalence of the four vaccine-covered types was only 1.9% in vaccinated females, compared with 4.8% in unvaccinated females (PR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.11-1.41).

In contrast, the prevalence of HPV types that were not covered by the vaccine showed little change – from 51.1% in the pre-vaccine era to 47.6% during 2015-2018 (PR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08). The authors considered this a good sign because it indicates that vaccine-type HPV infections are not being replaced with other oncogenic HPV infections. Between 2013 and 2016, the difference in the prevalence of the four HPV vaccine types was smaller at 1.8% among vaccinated males and 3.5% among unvaccinated males (PR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.11-2.20).

Again, the prevalence of non-HPV vaccine types was not significantly different between vaccinated and unvaccinated males: 30.7% versus 34.3%.

During the vaccine era, effectiveness for females ranged from 60% to 84%. For males, vaccine effectiveness could only be evaluated for the single 4-year period from 2013 to 2016, and it was estimated at 51%. Dr. Rosenblum noted that vaccine efficacy estimates were lower on this national survey than the almost 100% efficacy rates observed in clinical trials in both males and females.

“This might be due in part to many participants receiving the vaccine at an older age than is recommended when they could have been infected [with HPV] at the time of vaccination,” Dr. Rosenblum said. She also noted that because males were incorporated into the HPV vaccination program years after females, they likely also experienced strong herd effects from the vaccine, making it challenging to estimate vaccine effectiveness.

Dr. Rosenblum also noted that there have already been documented declines in cervical precancers and high-grade vulvar and vaginal precancers, as well as genital warts and juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. At the same time, the incidence of cervical precancers has recently declined among U.S. females in their late teens and early 20s – “likely reflecting the impact of vaccination,” she said.

“This study is good news for the United States HPV vaccination program, and all efforts are needed to ensure that children and adolescents receive routinely recommended vaccinations [including vaccination against HPV],” Dr. Rosenblum added.
 

Editorial comment

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues point out that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruptions in HPV vaccination programs and has reversed much of the progress made in recent years. “During the pandemic, providers and health systems have deprioritized adolescent vaccination and particularly HPV vaccination, which in turn has led to more severe drops for HPV vaccination than for other adolescent vaccinations, and for adolescent vaccination, compared with early childhood and adult vaccinations,” Dr. Perkins and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial.

Thus, the need to compensate for the cumulative deficit of missed vaccinations over the past 2 years has created a “serious and urgent threat” to cancer prevention efforts – “a shortfall from which it may take a decade to recover,” the editorialists predict. To try and reverse this trend, several practices have been shown to improve HPV vaccination rates.

The first is a strong provider recommendation such as, “Your child is due for an HPV vaccine today.” The second is to give standing orders to allow nurses and medical assistants to administer vaccinations without requiring intervention by a physician. Lastly, programs to remind patients when vaccines are due and to recall them for appointments also work well.

“Using evidence-based methods and redoubling our efforts to prioritize HPV vaccination will be crucial to ensuring that we do not lose a generation to preventable HPV-associated cancer,” write Dr. Perkins and colleagues.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Twelve years after the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program was introduced in the United States, the overall prevalence of cancer-causing HPV strains covered by the vaccine dropped by 85% among females – 90% among vaccinated females and 74% among unvaccinated females – a strong sign of herd immunity, a new analysis of a nationally representative database is showing.

“HPV vaccination is working well,” Hannah Rosenblum, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization in an email.

“Twelve years after introduction of HPV vaccination in the United States, national data demonstrate increasing impact among females and strong herd effects among unvaccinated females,” she added. “[Although] vaccination coverage and completion of the recommended dose in the United States is lower than coverage with other adolescent vaccinations, HPV vaccination is the best way to prevent HPV infections that can lead to several cancers in both females and males.”

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

NHANES survey

The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to examine the four HPV types in the quadrivalent vaccine before 2003 and 2006 (the pre-vaccine era) and then again between 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018 (the vaccine era). For females, they analyzed demographic and HPV prevalence data across each 4-year era.

“Analyses were limited to sexually experienced participants, to ensure that all those included had an opportunity for HPV exposure, and to participants aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected cervicovaginal specimens,” the authors explain.

This resulted in a sample size of 3,197 females. Demographic and HPV prevalence data were also collected from males but only during the 2013-2016 era, because those are the only years for which male HPV typing data are available in NHANES. Again, analyses were limited to sexually experienced males aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected penile specimens, which resulted in a sample size of 661 males.

Over the 12 years of follow-up for females, there was a steady increase in females reporting having received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine – from slightly over 25% during 2007-12 to 59% during 2015-2018. The percentage of males who reported having at least one HPV dose also increased, from 29.5% in 2016 to 34.5% in 2018.

During the earliest vaccine era (2007-2010), the prevalence of the four HPV strains covered by the vaccine was 7.3% among vaccinated females, compared with 20.4% among unvaccinated females. “By 2015 to 2018, the prevalence was 2.8% (prevalence ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.39). The prevalence of the four vaccine-covered types was only 1.9% in vaccinated females, compared with 4.8% in unvaccinated females (PR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.11-1.41).

In contrast, the prevalence of HPV types that were not covered by the vaccine showed little change – from 51.1% in the pre-vaccine era to 47.6% during 2015-2018 (PR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08). The authors considered this a good sign because it indicates that vaccine-type HPV infections are not being replaced with other oncogenic HPV infections. Between 2013 and 2016, the difference in the prevalence of the four HPV vaccine types was smaller at 1.8% among vaccinated males and 3.5% among unvaccinated males (PR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.11-2.20).

Again, the prevalence of non-HPV vaccine types was not significantly different between vaccinated and unvaccinated males: 30.7% versus 34.3%.

During the vaccine era, effectiveness for females ranged from 60% to 84%. For males, vaccine effectiveness could only be evaluated for the single 4-year period from 2013 to 2016, and it was estimated at 51%. Dr. Rosenblum noted that vaccine efficacy estimates were lower on this national survey than the almost 100% efficacy rates observed in clinical trials in both males and females.

“This might be due in part to many participants receiving the vaccine at an older age than is recommended when they could have been infected [with HPV] at the time of vaccination,” Dr. Rosenblum said. She also noted that because males were incorporated into the HPV vaccination program years after females, they likely also experienced strong herd effects from the vaccine, making it challenging to estimate vaccine effectiveness.

Dr. Rosenblum also noted that there have already been documented declines in cervical precancers and high-grade vulvar and vaginal precancers, as well as genital warts and juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. At the same time, the incidence of cervical precancers has recently declined among U.S. females in their late teens and early 20s – “likely reflecting the impact of vaccination,” she said.

“This study is good news for the United States HPV vaccination program, and all efforts are needed to ensure that children and adolescents receive routinely recommended vaccinations [including vaccination against HPV],” Dr. Rosenblum added.
 

Editorial comment

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues point out that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruptions in HPV vaccination programs and has reversed much of the progress made in recent years. “During the pandemic, providers and health systems have deprioritized adolescent vaccination and particularly HPV vaccination, which in turn has led to more severe drops for HPV vaccination than for other adolescent vaccinations, and for adolescent vaccination, compared with early childhood and adult vaccinations,” Dr. Perkins and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial.

Thus, the need to compensate for the cumulative deficit of missed vaccinations over the past 2 years has created a “serious and urgent threat” to cancer prevention efforts – “a shortfall from which it may take a decade to recover,” the editorialists predict. To try and reverse this trend, several practices have been shown to improve HPV vaccination rates.

The first is a strong provider recommendation such as, “Your child is due for an HPV vaccine today.” The second is to give standing orders to allow nurses and medical assistants to administer vaccinations without requiring intervention by a physician. Lastly, programs to remind patients when vaccines are due and to recall them for appointments also work well.

“Using evidence-based methods and redoubling our efforts to prioritize HPV vaccination will be crucial to ensuring that we do not lose a generation to preventable HPV-associated cancer,” write Dr. Perkins and colleagues.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Twelve years after the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program was introduced in the United States, the overall prevalence of cancer-causing HPV strains covered by the vaccine dropped by 85% among females – 90% among vaccinated females and 74% among unvaccinated females – a strong sign of herd immunity, a new analysis of a nationally representative database is showing.

“HPV vaccination is working well,” Hannah Rosenblum, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization in an email.

“Twelve years after introduction of HPV vaccination in the United States, national data demonstrate increasing impact among females and strong herd effects among unvaccinated females,” she added. “[Although] vaccination coverage and completion of the recommended dose in the United States is lower than coverage with other adolescent vaccinations, HPV vaccination is the best way to prevent HPV infections that can lead to several cancers in both females and males.”

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

NHANES survey

The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to examine the four HPV types in the quadrivalent vaccine before 2003 and 2006 (the pre-vaccine era) and then again between 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018 (the vaccine era). For females, they analyzed demographic and HPV prevalence data across each 4-year era.

“Analyses were limited to sexually experienced participants, to ensure that all those included had an opportunity for HPV exposure, and to participants aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected cervicovaginal specimens,” the authors explain.

This resulted in a sample size of 3,197 females. Demographic and HPV prevalence data were also collected from males but only during the 2013-2016 era, because those are the only years for which male HPV typing data are available in NHANES. Again, analyses were limited to sexually experienced males aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected penile specimens, which resulted in a sample size of 661 males.

Over the 12 years of follow-up for females, there was a steady increase in females reporting having received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine – from slightly over 25% during 2007-12 to 59% during 2015-2018. The percentage of males who reported having at least one HPV dose also increased, from 29.5% in 2016 to 34.5% in 2018.

During the earliest vaccine era (2007-2010), the prevalence of the four HPV strains covered by the vaccine was 7.3% among vaccinated females, compared with 20.4% among unvaccinated females. “By 2015 to 2018, the prevalence was 2.8% (prevalence ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.39). The prevalence of the four vaccine-covered types was only 1.9% in vaccinated females, compared with 4.8% in unvaccinated females (PR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.11-1.41).

In contrast, the prevalence of HPV types that were not covered by the vaccine showed little change – from 51.1% in the pre-vaccine era to 47.6% during 2015-2018 (PR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08). The authors considered this a good sign because it indicates that vaccine-type HPV infections are not being replaced with other oncogenic HPV infections. Between 2013 and 2016, the difference in the prevalence of the four HPV vaccine types was smaller at 1.8% among vaccinated males and 3.5% among unvaccinated males (PR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.11-2.20).

Again, the prevalence of non-HPV vaccine types was not significantly different between vaccinated and unvaccinated males: 30.7% versus 34.3%.

During the vaccine era, effectiveness for females ranged from 60% to 84%. For males, vaccine effectiveness could only be evaluated for the single 4-year period from 2013 to 2016, and it was estimated at 51%. Dr. Rosenblum noted that vaccine efficacy estimates were lower on this national survey than the almost 100% efficacy rates observed in clinical trials in both males and females.

“This might be due in part to many participants receiving the vaccine at an older age than is recommended when they could have been infected [with HPV] at the time of vaccination,” Dr. Rosenblum said. She also noted that because males were incorporated into the HPV vaccination program years after females, they likely also experienced strong herd effects from the vaccine, making it challenging to estimate vaccine effectiveness.

Dr. Rosenblum also noted that there have already been documented declines in cervical precancers and high-grade vulvar and vaginal precancers, as well as genital warts and juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. At the same time, the incidence of cervical precancers has recently declined among U.S. females in their late teens and early 20s – “likely reflecting the impact of vaccination,” she said.

“This study is good news for the United States HPV vaccination program, and all efforts are needed to ensure that children and adolescents receive routinely recommended vaccinations [including vaccination against HPV],” Dr. Rosenblum added.
 

Editorial comment

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues point out that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruptions in HPV vaccination programs and has reversed much of the progress made in recent years. “During the pandemic, providers and health systems have deprioritized adolescent vaccination and particularly HPV vaccination, which in turn has led to more severe drops for HPV vaccination than for other adolescent vaccinations, and for adolescent vaccination, compared with early childhood and adult vaccinations,” Dr. Perkins and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial.

Thus, the need to compensate for the cumulative deficit of missed vaccinations over the past 2 years has created a “serious and urgent threat” to cancer prevention efforts – “a shortfall from which it may take a decade to recover,” the editorialists predict. To try and reverse this trend, several practices have been shown to improve HPV vaccination rates.

The first is a strong provider recommendation such as, “Your child is due for an HPV vaccine today.” The second is to give standing orders to allow nurses and medical assistants to administer vaccinations without requiring intervention by a physician. Lastly, programs to remind patients when vaccines are due and to recall them for appointments also work well.

“Using evidence-based methods and redoubling our efforts to prioritize HPV vaccination will be crucial to ensuring that we do not lose a generation to preventable HPV-associated cancer,” write Dr. Perkins and colleagues.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new law will ban certain infant sleep products blamed for the deaths of more than 200 babies in the United States.

On May 16, President Joe Biden signed legislation that prohibits the manufacture and sale of crib bumpers or inclined sleepers for infants, due to the risk of suffocation, according to CBS News.

H.R. 3182, or the Safe Sleep for Babies Act of 2021, notes that sleepers and bumpers will be considered “banned hazardous products” under the Consumer Product Safety Act. It gives manufacturers and retailers 180 days to comply with the new rule.

“The dangers posed to babies have been apparent for years,” Teresa Murray, who directs the consumer watchdog office for the U.S. PIRG Education Fund, said in a statement.

“It’s unfortunate that this law could take months to take effect,” she said. “Parents and caregivers need to recognize the dangers of these products and get them out of their homes now.”

H.R. 3182 defines inclined sleepers as products that have a sleep surface slanted greater than 10 degrees and are intended for babies up to 1 year old. Crib bumpers include any material that is designed to cover the sides of a crib, which includes padding or vinyl bumper guards but not non-padded mesh crib liners.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has received reports of more than 113 deaths involving crib bumpers between 1990 and 2019, as well as 113 nonfatal incidents between 2008 and 2019, according to a report from the commission.

More than 100 babies have died from infant-inclined sleep products, according to the commission, which has recalled numerous versions in recent years. But older models are still in circulation, CBS News reported.

Last year, the commission approved a federal safety rule that bans several types of sleep products for babies under 5 months old. Set to take effect next month, the rule requires products marketed for infants to meet the same federal safety standards as required for cribs and similar products.

Parents and advocates have called for a ban on these products for decades, according to CBS, since they can lead to suffocation when an infant’s nose and mouth are covered by a bumper or become stuck between a bumper and crib mattress.

Sudden unexpected infant death, or SUID – which includes sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS – is the leading cause of injury death in infancy, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. The group’s recommendations for safe sleep advise that infants should sleep on their back on a firm, flat surface without any extra padding, pillows, blankets, stuffed toys, bumpers, or other soft items in the sleep space.


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

A new law will ban certain infant sleep products blamed for the deaths of more than 200 babies in the United States.

On May 16, President Joe Biden signed legislation that prohibits the manufacture and sale of crib bumpers or inclined sleepers for infants, due to the risk of suffocation, according to CBS News.

H.R. 3182, or the Safe Sleep for Babies Act of 2021, notes that sleepers and bumpers will be considered “banned hazardous products” under the Consumer Product Safety Act. It gives manufacturers and retailers 180 days to comply with the new rule.

“The dangers posed to babies have been apparent for years,” Teresa Murray, who directs the consumer watchdog office for the U.S. PIRG Education Fund, said in a statement.

“It’s unfortunate that this law could take months to take effect,” she said. “Parents and caregivers need to recognize the dangers of these products and get them out of their homes now.”

H.R. 3182 defines inclined sleepers as products that have a sleep surface slanted greater than 10 degrees and are intended for babies up to 1 year old. Crib bumpers include any material that is designed to cover the sides of a crib, which includes padding or vinyl bumper guards but not non-padded mesh crib liners.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has received reports of more than 113 deaths involving crib bumpers between 1990 and 2019, as well as 113 nonfatal incidents between 2008 and 2019, according to a report from the commission.

More than 100 babies have died from infant-inclined sleep products, according to the commission, which has recalled numerous versions in recent years. But older models are still in circulation, CBS News reported.

Last year, the commission approved a federal safety rule that bans several types of sleep products for babies under 5 months old. Set to take effect next month, the rule requires products marketed for infants to meet the same federal safety standards as required for cribs and similar products.

Parents and advocates have called for a ban on these products for decades, according to CBS, since they can lead to suffocation when an infant’s nose and mouth are covered by a bumper or become stuck between a bumper and crib mattress.

Sudden unexpected infant death, or SUID – which includes sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS – is the leading cause of injury death in infancy, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. The group’s recommendations for safe sleep advise that infants should sleep on their back on a firm, flat surface without any extra padding, pillows, blankets, stuffed toys, bumpers, or other soft items in the sleep space.


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

A new law will ban certain infant sleep products blamed for the deaths of more than 200 babies in the United States.

On May 16, President Joe Biden signed legislation that prohibits the manufacture and sale of crib bumpers or inclined sleepers for infants, due to the risk of suffocation, according to CBS News.

H.R. 3182, or the Safe Sleep for Babies Act of 2021, notes that sleepers and bumpers will be considered “banned hazardous products” under the Consumer Product Safety Act. It gives manufacturers and retailers 180 days to comply with the new rule.

“The dangers posed to babies have been apparent for years,” Teresa Murray, who directs the consumer watchdog office for the U.S. PIRG Education Fund, said in a statement.

“It’s unfortunate that this law could take months to take effect,” she said. “Parents and caregivers need to recognize the dangers of these products and get them out of their homes now.”

H.R. 3182 defines inclined sleepers as products that have a sleep surface slanted greater than 10 degrees and are intended for babies up to 1 year old. Crib bumpers include any material that is designed to cover the sides of a crib, which includes padding or vinyl bumper guards but not non-padded mesh crib liners.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has received reports of more than 113 deaths involving crib bumpers between 1990 and 2019, as well as 113 nonfatal incidents between 2008 and 2019, according to a report from the commission.

More than 100 babies have died from infant-inclined sleep products, according to the commission, which has recalled numerous versions in recent years. But older models are still in circulation, CBS News reported.

Last year, the commission approved a federal safety rule that bans several types of sleep products for babies under 5 months old. Set to take effect next month, the rule requires products marketed for infants to meet the same federal safety standards as required for cribs and similar products.

Parents and advocates have called for a ban on these products for decades, according to CBS, since they can lead to suffocation when an infant’s nose and mouth are covered by a bumper or become stuck between a bumper and crib mattress.

Sudden unexpected infant death, or SUID – which includes sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS – is the leading cause of injury death in infancy, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. The group’s recommendations for safe sleep advise that infants should sleep on their back on a firm, flat surface without any extra padding, pillows, blankets, stuffed toys, bumpers, or other soft items in the sleep space.


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

The Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (Comirnaty) showed a good safety profile with minimal short-term side effects and no negative impact on disease activity in a cohort of adolescents and young adults with rheumatic diseases, according to research presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, held virtually this year.

Only 3% of patients experience a severe transient adverse event, according to Merav Heshin-Bekenstein, MD, of Dana-Dwek Children’s Hospital at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center in Israel. The findings were published in Rheumatology.

Courtesy Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein

“We found that the mRNA Pfizer vaccine was immunogenic and induced an adequate humoral immune response in adolescent patients,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. “It was definitely comparable to healthy controls and practically all patients were seropositive following the second vaccine, except for one patient with long-standing systemic sclerosis.”

The findings were not necessarily surprising but were encouraging to Melissa S. Oliver, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis. Dr. Oliver wasn’t part of the study team.

“We know that the COVID vaccines in healthy adolescents have shown good efficacy with minimal side effects, and it’s good to see that this study showed that in those with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Oliver told this news organization.

Until now, the data on COVID-19 vaccines in teens with rheumatic illnesses has been limited, she said, so “many pediatric rheumatologists only have the data from adult studies to go on or personal experience with their own cohort of patients.”

But the high immunogenicity seen in the study was a pleasant surprise to Beth H. Rutstein, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

“I was both surprised and thrilled with Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s findings suggesting near-universal seroconversion for patients with rheumatic disease regardless of underlying diagnosis or immunomodulatory therapy regimen, as much of the adult data has suggested a poorer seroconversion rate” and lower antibody titers in adults with similar illnesses, Dr. Rutstein said in an interview.

The study “provides essential reassurance that vaccination against COVID-19 does not increase the risk of disease flare or worsen disease severity scores,” said Dr. Rutstein, who was not associated with the research. “Rather than speaking purely anecdotally with our patients and their families, we can refer to the science – which is always more reassuring for both our patients and ourselves.”
 

Study included diverse conditions and therapies

Risk factors for poor outcomes with COVID-19 in children include obesity, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, and asthma, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) and long COVID are also potential complications of COVID-19 with less understood risk factors.

Although COVID-19 is most often mild in children, certain severe, systemic rheumatic diseases increase hospitalization risk, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and vasculitis. Evidence has also shown that COVID-19 infection increases the risk of disease flare in teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases, so it’s “crucial to prevent COVID-19 disease in this population,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein said.

Her study therefore aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine for teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases and those taking immunomodulatory medications. The international prospective multicenter study ran from April to November 2021 at three pediatric rheumatology clinics in Israel and one in Slovenia. Endpoints included short-term side effects, vaccination impact on clinical disease activity, immunogenicity at 2-9 weeks after the second dose, and, secondarily, efficacy against COVID-19 infection.

The 91 participants included adolescents aged 12-18 and young adults aged 18-21. Nearly half of the participants (46%) had juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), and 14% had SLE. Other participants’ conditions included systemic vasculitis, idiopathic uveitis, inflammatory bowel disease–related arthritis, systemic or localized scleroderma, juvenile dermatomyositis, or an autoinflammatory disease. Participants’ mean disease duration was 4.8 years.  

The researchers compared the patients with a control group of 40 individuals with similar demographics but without rheumatic disease. The researchers used the LIAISON quantitative assay to assess serum IgG antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in both groups.

Eight in 10 participants with rheumatic disease were taking an immunomodulatory medication, including a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) in 40%, a biologic DMARD in 37%, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in 32%, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in 19%, glucocorticoids in 14%, and mycophenolate in 11%. A smaller proportion were on other biologics: JAK inhibitors in 6.6%, anti-CD20 drugs in 4.4%, and an IL-6 inhibitor in 1%.
 

Side effects similar in both groups

None of the side effects reported by participants were statistically different between those with rheumatic disease and the control group. Localized pain was the most common side effect, reported by 73%-79% of participants after each dose. About twice as many participants with rheumatic disease experienced muscle aches and joint pains, compared with the control group, but the differences were not significant. Fever occurred more often in those with rheumatic disease (6%, five cases) than without (3%, one case). One-third of those with rheumatic disease felt tiredness, compared with 20% of the control group.

None of the healthy controls were hospitalized after vaccination, but three rheumatic patients were, including two after the first dose. Both were 17 years old, had systemic vasculitis with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), and were taking rituximab (Rituxan). One patient experienced acute onset of chronic renal failure, fever, dehydration, and high C-reactive protein within hours of vaccination. The other experienced new onset of pulmonary hemorrhage a week after vaccination.

In addition, a 14-year-old female with lupus, taking only HCQ, went to the emergency department with fever, headache, vomiting, and joint pain 1 day after the second vaccine dose. She had normal inflammatory markers and no change in disease activity score, and she was discharged with low-dose steroids tapered after 2 weeks.
 

Immune response high in patients with rheumatic disease

Immunogenicity was similar in both groups, with 97% seropositivity in the rheumatic disease group and 100% in the control group. Average IgG titers were 242 in the rheumatic group and 388 in the control group (P < .0001). Seropositivity was 88% in those taking mycophenolate with another drug (100% with mycophenolate monotherapy), 90% with HCQ, 94% with any csDMARDs and another drug (100% with csDMARD monotherapy), and 100% for all other drugs. During 3 months’ follow-up after vaccination, there were no COVID-19 cases among the participants.

Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein noted that their results showed better immunogenicity in teens, compared with adults, for two specific drugs. Seropositivity in teens taking methotrexate (Rheumatrex, Trexall) or rituximab was 100% in this study, compared with 84% in adults taking methotrexate and 39% in adults taking rituximab in a previous study. However, only three patients in this study were taking rituximab, and only seven were taking methotrexate.

The study’s heterogenous population was both a strength and a weakness of the study. “Due to the diversity of rheumatic diseases and medications included in this cohort, it was not possible to draw significant conclusions regarding the impact of the immunomodulatory medications and type of disease” on titers, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told attendees.

Still, “I think as pediatric rheumatologists, we can feel reassured in recommending the COVID-19 vaccine to our patients,” Dr. Oliver said. “I will add that every patient is different, and everyone should have a conversation with their physician about receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.” Dr. Oliver said she discusses vaccination, including COVID vaccination, with every patient, and it’s been challenging to address concerns in the midst of so much misinformation circulating about the vaccine.

These findings do raise questions about whether it’s still necessary to hold immunomodulatory medications to get the vaccine,” Dr. Rutstein said.

“Many families are nervous to pause their medications before and after the vaccine as is currently recommended for many therapies by the American College of Rheumatology, and I do share that concern for some of my patients with more clinically unstable disease, so I try to work with each family to decide on best timing and have delayed or deferred the series until some patients are on a steady dose of a new immunomodulatory medication if it has been recently started,” Dr. Rutstein said. “This is one of the reasons why Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s study is so important – we may be holding medications that can be safely continued and even further decrease the risk of disease flare.”

None of the physicians have disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

The Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (Comirnaty) showed a good safety profile with minimal short-term side effects and no negative impact on disease activity in a cohort of adolescents and young adults with rheumatic diseases, according to research presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, held virtually this year.

Only 3% of patients experience a severe transient adverse event, according to Merav Heshin-Bekenstein, MD, of Dana-Dwek Children’s Hospital at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center in Israel. The findings were published in Rheumatology.

Courtesy Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein

“We found that the mRNA Pfizer vaccine was immunogenic and induced an adequate humoral immune response in adolescent patients,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. “It was definitely comparable to healthy controls and practically all patients were seropositive following the second vaccine, except for one patient with long-standing systemic sclerosis.”

The findings were not necessarily surprising but were encouraging to Melissa S. Oliver, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis. Dr. Oliver wasn’t part of the study team.

“We know that the COVID vaccines in healthy adolescents have shown good efficacy with minimal side effects, and it’s good to see that this study showed that in those with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Oliver told this news organization.

Until now, the data on COVID-19 vaccines in teens with rheumatic illnesses has been limited, she said, so “many pediatric rheumatologists only have the data from adult studies to go on or personal experience with their own cohort of patients.”

But the high immunogenicity seen in the study was a pleasant surprise to Beth H. Rutstein, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

“I was both surprised and thrilled with Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s findings suggesting near-universal seroconversion for patients with rheumatic disease regardless of underlying diagnosis or immunomodulatory therapy regimen, as much of the adult data has suggested a poorer seroconversion rate” and lower antibody titers in adults with similar illnesses, Dr. Rutstein said in an interview.

The study “provides essential reassurance that vaccination against COVID-19 does not increase the risk of disease flare or worsen disease severity scores,” said Dr. Rutstein, who was not associated with the research. “Rather than speaking purely anecdotally with our patients and their families, we can refer to the science – which is always more reassuring for both our patients and ourselves.”
 

Study included diverse conditions and therapies

Risk factors for poor outcomes with COVID-19 in children include obesity, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, and asthma, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) and long COVID are also potential complications of COVID-19 with less understood risk factors.

Although COVID-19 is most often mild in children, certain severe, systemic rheumatic diseases increase hospitalization risk, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and vasculitis. Evidence has also shown that COVID-19 infection increases the risk of disease flare in teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases, so it’s “crucial to prevent COVID-19 disease in this population,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein said.

Her study therefore aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine for teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases and those taking immunomodulatory medications. The international prospective multicenter study ran from April to November 2021 at three pediatric rheumatology clinics in Israel and one in Slovenia. Endpoints included short-term side effects, vaccination impact on clinical disease activity, immunogenicity at 2-9 weeks after the second dose, and, secondarily, efficacy against COVID-19 infection.

The 91 participants included adolescents aged 12-18 and young adults aged 18-21. Nearly half of the participants (46%) had juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), and 14% had SLE. Other participants’ conditions included systemic vasculitis, idiopathic uveitis, inflammatory bowel disease–related arthritis, systemic or localized scleroderma, juvenile dermatomyositis, or an autoinflammatory disease. Participants’ mean disease duration was 4.8 years.  

The researchers compared the patients with a control group of 40 individuals with similar demographics but without rheumatic disease. The researchers used the LIAISON quantitative assay to assess serum IgG antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in both groups.

Eight in 10 participants with rheumatic disease were taking an immunomodulatory medication, including a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) in 40%, a biologic DMARD in 37%, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in 32%, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in 19%, glucocorticoids in 14%, and mycophenolate in 11%. A smaller proportion were on other biologics: JAK inhibitors in 6.6%, anti-CD20 drugs in 4.4%, and an IL-6 inhibitor in 1%.
 

Side effects similar in both groups

None of the side effects reported by participants were statistically different between those with rheumatic disease and the control group. Localized pain was the most common side effect, reported by 73%-79% of participants after each dose. About twice as many participants with rheumatic disease experienced muscle aches and joint pains, compared with the control group, but the differences were not significant. Fever occurred more often in those with rheumatic disease (6%, five cases) than without (3%, one case). One-third of those with rheumatic disease felt tiredness, compared with 20% of the control group.

None of the healthy controls were hospitalized after vaccination, but three rheumatic patients were, including two after the first dose. Both were 17 years old, had systemic vasculitis with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), and were taking rituximab (Rituxan). One patient experienced acute onset of chronic renal failure, fever, dehydration, and high C-reactive protein within hours of vaccination. The other experienced new onset of pulmonary hemorrhage a week after vaccination.

In addition, a 14-year-old female with lupus, taking only HCQ, went to the emergency department with fever, headache, vomiting, and joint pain 1 day after the second vaccine dose. She had normal inflammatory markers and no change in disease activity score, and she was discharged with low-dose steroids tapered after 2 weeks.
 

Immune response high in patients with rheumatic disease

Immunogenicity was similar in both groups, with 97% seropositivity in the rheumatic disease group and 100% in the control group. Average IgG titers were 242 in the rheumatic group and 388 in the control group (P < .0001). Seropositivity was 88% in those taking mycophenolate with another drug (100% with mycophenolate monotherapy), 90% with HCQ, 94% with any csDMARDs and another drug (100% with csDMARD monotherapy), and 100% for all other drugs. During 3 months’ follow-up after vaccination, there were no COVID-19 cases among the participants.

Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein noted that their results showed better immunogenicity in teens, compared with adults, for two specific drugs. Seropositivity in teens taking methotrexate (Rheumatrex, Trexall) or rituximab was 100% in this study, compared with 84% in adults taking methotrexate and 39% in adults taking rituximab in a previous study. However, only three patients in this study were taking rituximab, and only seven were taking methotrexate.

The study’s heterogenous population was both a strength and a weakness of the study. “Due to the diversity of rheumatic diseases and medications included in this cohort, it was not possible to draw significant conclusions regarding the impact of the immunomodulatory medications and type of disease” on titers, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told attendees.

Still, “I think as pediatric rheumatologists, we can feel reassured in recommending the COVID-19 vaccine to our patients,” Dr. Oliver said. “I will add that every patient is different, and everyone should have a conversation with their physician about receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.” Dr. Oliver said she discusses vaccination, including COVID vaccination, with every patient, and it’s been challenging to address concerns in the midst of so much misinformation circulating about the vaccine.

These findings do raise questions about whether it’s still necessary to hold immunomodulatory medications to get the vaccine,” Dr. Rutstein said.

“Many families are nervous to pause their medications before and after the vaccine as is currently recommended for many therapies by the American College of Rheumatology, and I do share that concern for some of my patients with more clinically unstable disease, so I try to work with each family to decide on best timing and have delayed or deferred the series until some patients are on a steady dose of a new immunomodulatory medication if it has been recently started,” Dr. Rutstein said. “This is one of the reasons why Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s study is so important – we may be holding medications that can be safely continued and even further decrease the risk of disease flare.”

None of the physicians have disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

The Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (Comirnaty) showed a good safety profile with minimal short-term side effects and no negative impact on disease activity in a cohort of adolescents and young adults with rheumatic diseases, according to research presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, held virtually this year.

Only 3% of patients experience a severe transient adverse event, according to Merav Heshin-Bekenstein, MD, of Dana-Dwek Children’s Hospital at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center in Israel. The findings were published in Rheumatology.

Courtesy Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein

“We found that the mRNA Pfizer vaccine was immunogenic and induced an adequate humoral immune response in adolescent patients,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. “It was definitely comparable to healthy controls and practically all patients were seropositive following the second vaccine, except for one patient with long-standing systemic sclerosis.”

The findings were not necessarily surprising but were encouraging to Melissa S. Oliver, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis. Dr. Oliver wasn’t part of the study team.

“We know that the COVID vaccines in healthy adolescents have shown good efficacy with minimal side effects, and it’s good to see that this study showed that in those with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Oliver told this news organization.

Until now, the data on COVID-19 vaccines in teens with rheumatic illnesses has been limited, she said, so “many pediatric rheumatologists only have the data from adult studies to go on or personal experience with their own cohort of patients.”

But the high immunogenicity seen in the study was a pleasant surprise to Beth H. Rutstein, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

“I was both surprised and thrilled with Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s findings suggesting near-universal seroconversion for patients with rheumatic disease regardless of underlying diagnosis or immunomodulatory therapy regimen, as much of the adult data has suggested a poorer seroconversion rate” and lower antibody titers in adults with similar illnesses, Dr. Rutstein said in an interview.

The study “provides essential reassurance that vaccination against COVID-19 does not increase the risk of disease flare or worsen disease severity scores,” said Dr. Rutstein, who was not associated with the research. “Rather than speaking purely anecdotally with our patients and their families, we can refer to the science – which is always more reassuring for both our patients and ourselves.”
 

Study included diverse conditions and therapies

Risk factors for poor outcomes with COVID-19 in children include obesity, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, and asthma, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) and long COVID are also potential complications of COVID-19 with less understood risk factors.

Although COVID-19 is most often mild in children, certain severe, systemic rheumatic diseases increase hospitalization risk, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and vasculitis. Evidence has also shown that COVID-19 infection increases the risk of disease flare in teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases, so it’s “crucial to prevent COVID-19 disease in this population,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein said.

Her study therefore aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine for teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases and those taking immunomodulatory medications. The international prospective multicenter study ran from April to November 2021 at three pediatric rheumatology clinics in Israel and one in Slovenia. Endpoints included short-term side effects, vaccination impact on clinical disease activity, immunogenicity at 2-9 weeks after the second dose, and, secondarily, efficacy against COVID-19 infection.

The 91 participants included adolescents aged 12-18 and young adults aged 18-21. Nearly half of the participants (46%) had juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), and 14% had SLE. Other participants’ conditions included systemic vasculitis, idiopathic uveitis, inflammatory bowel disease–related arthritis, systemic or localized scleroderma, juvenile dermatomyositis, or an autoinflammatory disease. Participants’ mean disease duration was 4.8 years.  

The researchers compared the patients with a control group of 40 individuals with similar demographics but without rheumatic disease. The researchers used the LIAISON quantitative assay to assess serum IgG antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in both groups.

Eight in 10 participants with rheumatic disease were taking an immunomodulatory medication, including a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) in 40%, a biologic DMARD in 37%, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in 32%, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in 19%, glucocorticoids in 14%, and mycophenolate in 11%. A smaller proportion were on other biologics: JAK inhibitors in 6.6%, anti-CD20 drugs in 4.4%, and an IL-6 inhibitor in 1%.
 

Side effects similar in both groups

None of the side effects reported by participants were statistically different between those with rheumatic disease and the control group. Localized pain was the most common side effect, reported by 73%-79% of participants after each dose. About twice as many participants with rheumatic disease experienced muscle aches and joint pains, compared with the control group, but the differences were not significant. Fever occurred more often in those with rheumatic disease (6%, five cases) than without (3%, one case). One-third of those with rheumatic disease felt tiredness, compared with 20% of the control group.

None of the healthy controls were hospitalized after vaccination, but three rheumatic patients were, including two after the first dose. Both were 17 years old, had systemic vasculitis with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), and were taking rituximab (Rituxan). One patient experienced acute onset of chronic renal failure, fever, dehydration, and high C-reactive protein within hours of vaccination. The other experienced new onset of pulmonary hemorrhage a week after vaccination.

In addition, a 14-year-old female with lupus, taking only HCQ, went to the emergency department with fever, headache, vomiting, and joint pain 1 day after the second vaccine dose. She had normal inflammatory markers and no change in disease activity score, and she was discharged with low-dose steroids tapered after 2 weeks.
 

Immune response high in patients with rheumatic disease

Immunogenicity was similar in both groups, with 97% seropositivity in the rheumatic disease group and 100% in the control group. Average IgG titers were 242 in the rheumatic group and 388 in the control group (P < .0001). Seropositivity was 88% in those taking mycophenolate with another drug (100% with mycophenolate monotherapy), 90% with HCQ, 94% with any csDMARDs and another drug (100% with csDMARD monotherapy), and 100% for all other drugs. During 3 months’ follow-up after vaccination, there were no COVID-19 cases among the participants.

Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein noted that their results showed better immunogenicity in teens, compared with adults, for two specific drugs. Seropositivity in teens taking methotrexate (Rheumatrex, Trexall) or rituximab was 100% in this study, compared with 84% in adults taking methotrexate and 39% in adults taking rituximab in a previous study. However, only three patients in this study were taking rituximab, and only seven were taking methotrexate.

The study’s heterogenous population was both a strength and a weakness of the study. “Due to the diversity of rheumatic diseases and medications included in this cohort, it was not possible to draw significant conclusions regarding the impact of the immunomodulatory medications and type of disease” on titers, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told attendees.

Still, “I think as pediatric rheumatologists, we can feel reassured in recommending the COVID-19 vaccine to our patients,” Dr. Oliver said. “I will add that every patient is different, and everyone should have a conversation with their physician about receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.” Dr. Oliver said she discusses vaccination, including COVID vaccination, with every patient, and it’s been challenging to address concerns in the midst of so much misinformation circulating about the vaccine.

These findings do raise questions about whether it’s still necessary to hold immunomodulatory medications to get the vaccine,” Dr. Rutstein said.

“Many families are nervous to pause their medications before and after the vaccine as is currently recommended for many therapies by the American College of Rheumatology, and I do share that concern for some of my patients with more clinically unstable disease, so I try to work with each family to decide on best timing and have delayed or deferred the series until some patients are on a steady dose of a new immunomodulatory medication if it has been recently started,” Dr. Rutstein said. “This is one of the reasons why Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s study is so important – we may be holding medications that can be safely continued and even further decrease the risk of disease flare.”

None of the physicians have disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

Young stroke patients have an increased risk of being diagnosed with a new cancer in the years following their stroke, a new study shows, raising the possibility that the stroke might be the first manifestation of an underlying cancer.

The data were presented by Jamie Verhoeven, MD, Radboud University Medical Centre, the Netherlands, at the recent European Stroke Organisation Conference 2022.

Dr. Verhoeven noted that 10% of all stroke cases occur in individuals younger than 50 years. During the past few decades, the incidence of stroke in the young has steadily increased, whereas the incidence of stroke in older adults has stabilized or decreased.

“Stroke in the young differs from stroke in older patients, and one of the major differences is that stroke in the young has a higher proportion of cryptogenic stroke, with no clear cause found in over one-third of patients,” she said.

Also, having an active cancer is known to be a risk factor for thrombosis. This association is strongest in venous thrombosis and has been less well investigated in arterial thrombosis, Dr. Verhoeven reported.

Her group aimed to investigate whether in some patients with cryptogenic stroke, this may be the first manifestation of an underlying cancer. “If this hypothesis is true, then it would be more obvious in young patients who have a higher incidence of cryptogenic stroke,” she said.

They performed a population-based observational cohort study using diagnostic ICD codes from the national Hospital Discharge Registry in the Netherlands and the Dutch Population Registry from 1998 to 2019.

Patients with a history of cancer before their first stroke and those with central nervous system cancers at the time of stroke or nonmelanoma skin cancers (which have been shown to have no systemic effects) were excluded.

Reference data came from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, which collects data on all cancer diagnoses in the country.

The researchers identified 27,616 young stroke patients (age range, 15-49 years; median age, 45 years) and 362,782 older stroke patients (age range, 50 years and older; median age, 76 years).

The cumulative incidence of any cancer at 10 years was 3.7% in the younger group and 8.5% in the older group.

The data were compared with matched peers from the general population. The main outcome measures were cumulative incidence of first-ever cancer after stroke (stratified by stroke subtype, age and sex) and standardized incidence rates.

Results showed that the risk for cancer was higher in the younger age group than in the matched general population.

In this age group, the 1-year risk of any new cancer was 2.6 times higher (95% confidence interval, 2.2-3.1) after ischemic stroke and 5.4 times (95% CI, 3.8-7.3) after intracerebral hemorrhage than in matched peers from the general population.

In contrast, in stroke patients older than 50 years, the 1-year risk for any new cancer was 1.2 times higher than the general population after either ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke.

“The younger patients have a higher risk increase of cancer than older patients, and this risk increase is most evident in the first 1 to 2 years after stroke but remains statistically significant for up to 5 to 8 years later,” Dr. Verhoeven said.

The cancers that were most involved in this risk increase were those of the lower respiratory tract, hematologic cancers, and gastrointestinal cancers.

The main strength of this study was the use of national databases that allowed for a very large sample size, but this brings with it the danger of misclassification of events and the lack of clinical data, Dr. Verhoeven noted.

“Young stroke patients are at increased risk of developing a new cancer in the years following their stroke compared to peers from the general population, but this risk is only marginally increased in the older stroke population,” she concluded.

She pointed out that it is not possible to confirm any causal relation from this study design, but a clear association has been shown.

“We need more studies into this field. We need a large clinical dataset to examine which clinical phenotypes are associated with possible underlying cancers to identify which patients are most at risk. We are already working on this,” she said. “Then it remains to be investigated whether screening for an underlying cancer should be added to the diagnostic workup in young stroke patients.”

Commenting on the study after the presentation, William Whiteley, BM, PhD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and a consultant neurologist in NHS Lothian, said it was difficult to know whether the link shown between stroke and cancer was causal, but the effect size in this study was “quite large.”

He pointed out that the associations with bowel and lung cancer could be due to shared risk factors, such as smoking, but he said the finding on a link with hematologic cancers is “interesting.”

Noting that there are links between hematologic cancers and thrombotic events, he said: “People have wondered if that is because of clonal expansion, which has been shown to increase the risk of atherosclerosis, so the question is whether this is some kind of common risk factor here.”

Dr. Verhoeven said she did not believe that shared risk factors fully explained the difference in increased risks between young and older patients.

“It does not fully explain why the risk of cancer is specifically higher in the first 1 to 2 years after the stroke diagnosis. I would think if it was just shared risk factors, the risk increase should remain relatively stable, or even increase due to the build-up of exposure to risk factors over the years,” she said.

Dr. Whiteley said that data like these are “really useful in trying to estimate these associations and it gives us some hypotheses to investigate in smaller mechanistic studies.”

Asked whether these data justify screening younger cryptogenic stroke patients more systematically for cancer, Dr. Whiteley replied: “I think we need some absolute risk estimates for that; for example, what proportion of younger patients would be at risk over the next few years when that screening would make a difference.”

Dr. Verhoeven reports no disclosures.

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

Young stroke patients have an increased risk of being diagnosed with a new cancer in the years following their stroke, a new study shows, raising the possibility that the stroke might be the first manifestation of an underlying cancer.

The data were presented by Jamie Verhoeven, MD, Radboud University Medical Centre, the Netherlands, at the recent European Stroke Organisation Conference 2022.

Dr. Verhoeven noted that 10% of all stroke cases occur in individuals younger than 50 years. During the past few decades, the incidence of stroke in the young has steadily increased, whereas the incidence of stroke in older adults has stabilized or decreased.

“Stroke in the young differs from stroke in older patients, and one of the major differences is that stroke in the young has a higher proportion of cryptogenic stroke, with no clear cause found in over one-third of patients,” she said.

Also, having an active cancer is known to be a risk factor for thrombosis. This association is strongest in venous thrombosis and has been less well investigated in arterial thrombosis, Dr. Verhoeven reported.

Her group aimed to investigate whether in some patients with cryptogenic stroke, this may be the first manifestation of an underlying cancer. “If this hypothesis is true, then it would be more obvious in young patients who have a higher incidence of cryptogenic stroke,” she said.

They performed a population-based observational cohort study using diagnostic ICD codes from the national Hospital Discharge Registry in the Netherlands and the Dutch Population Registry from 1998 to 2019.

Patients with a history of cancer before their first stroke and those with central nervous system cancers at the time of stroke or nonmelanoma skin cancers (which have been shown to have no systemic effects) were excluded.

Reference data came from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, which collects data on all cancer diagnoses in the country.

The researchers identified 27,616 young stroke patients (age range, 15-49 years; median age, 45 years) and 362,782 older stroke patients (age range, 50 years and older; median age, 76 years).

The cumulative incidence of any cancer at 10 years was 3.7% in the younger group and 8.5% in the older group.

The data were compared with matched peers from the general population. The main outcome measures were cumulative incidence of first-ever cancer after stroke (stratified by stroke subtype, age and sex) and standardized incidence rates.

Results showed that the risk for cancer was higher in the younger age group than in the matched general population.

In this age group, the 1-year risk of any new cancer was 2.6 times higher (95% confidence interval, 2.2-3.1) after ischemic stroke and 5.4 times (95% CI, 3.8-7.3) after intracerebral hemorrhage than in matched peers from the general population.

In contrast, in stroke patients older than 50 years, the 1-year risk for any new cancer was 1.2 times higher than the general population after either ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke.

“The younger patients have a higher risk increase of cancer than older patients, and this risk increase is most evident in the first 1 to 2 years after stroke but remains statistically significant for up to 5 to 8 years later,” Dr. Verhoeven said.

The cancers that were most involved in this risk increase were those of the lower respiratory tract, hematologic cancers, and gastrointestinal cancers.

The main strength of this study was the use of national databases that allowed for a very large sample size, but this brings with it the danger of misclassification of events and the lack of clinical data, Dr. Verhoeven noted.

“Young stroke patients are at increased risk of developing a new cancer in the years following their stroke compared to peers from the general population, but this risk is only marginally increased in the older stroke population,” she concluded.

She pointed out that it is not possible to confirm any causal relation from this study design, but a clear association has been shown.

“We need more studies into this field. We need a large clinical dataset to examine which clinical phenotypes are associated with possible underlying cancers to identify which patients are most at risk. We are already working on this,” she said. “Then it remains to be investigated whether screening for an underlying cancer should be added to the diagnostic workup in young stroke patients.”

Commenting on the study after the presentation, William Whiteley, BM, PhD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and a consultant neurologist in NHS Lothian, said it was difficult to know whether the link shown between stroke and cancer was causal, but the effect size in this study was “quite large.”

He pointed out that the associations with bowel and lung cancer could be due to shared risk factors, such as smoking, but he said the finding on a link with hematologic cancers is “interesting.”

Noting that there are links between hematologic cancers and thrombotic events, he said: “People have wondered if that is because of clonal expansion, which has been shown to increase the risk of atherosclerosis, so the question is whether this is some kind of common risk factor here.”

Dr. Verhoeven said she did not believe that shared risk factors fully explained the difference in increased risks between young and older patients.

“It does not fully explain why the risk of cancer is specifically higher in the first 1 to 2 years after the stroke diagnosis. I would think if it was just shared risk factors, the risk increase should remain relatively stable, or even increase due to the build-up of exposure to risk factors over the years,” she said.

Dr. Whiteley said that data like these are “really useful in trying to estimate these associations and it gives us some hypotheses to investigate in smaller mechanistic studies.”

Asked whether these data justify screening younger cryptogenic stroke patients more systematically for cancer, Dr. Whiteley replied: “I think we need some absolute risk estimates for that; for example, what proportion of younger patients would be at risk over the next few years when that screening would make a difference.”

Dr. Verhoeven reports no disclosures.

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

Young stroke patients have an increased risk of being diagnosed with a new cancer in the years following their stroke, a new study shows, raising the possibility that the stroke might be the first manifestation of an underlying cancer.

The data were presented by Jamie Verhoeven, MD, Radboud University Medical Centre, the Netherlands, at the recent European Stroke Organisation Conference 2022.

Dr. Verhoeven noted that 10% of all stroke cases occur in individuals younger than 50 years. During the past few decades, the incidence of stroke in the young has steadily increased, whereas the incidence of stroke in older adults has stabilized or decreased.

“Stroke in the young differs from stroke in older patients, and one of the major differences is that stroke in the young has a higher proportion of cryptogenic stroke, with no clear cause found in over one-third of patients,” she said.

Also, having an active cancer is known to be a risk factor for thrombosis. This association is strongest in venous thrombosis and has been less well investigated in arterial thrombosis, Dr. Verhoeven reported.

Her group aimed to investigate whether in some patients with cryptogenic stroke, this may be the first manifestation of an underlying cancer. “If this hypothesis is true, then it would be more obvious in young patients who have a higher incidence of cryptogenic stroke,” she said.

They performed a population-based observational cohort study using diagnostic ICD codes from the national Hospital Discharge Registry in the Netherlands and the Dutch Population Registry from 1998 to 2019.

Patients with a history of cancer before their first stroke and those with central nervous system cancers at the time of stroke or nonmelanoma skin cancers (which have been shown to have no systemic effects) were excluded.

Reference data came from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, which collects data on all cancer diagnoses in the country.

The researchers identified 27,616 young stroke patients (age range, 15-49 years; median age, 45 years) and 362,782 older stroke patients (age range, 50 years and older; median age, 76 years).

The cumulative incidence of any cancer at 10 years was 3.7% in the younger group and 8.5% in the older group.

The data were compared with matched peers from the general population. The main outcome measures were cumulative incidence of first-ever cancer after stroke (stratified by stroke subtype, age and sex) and standardized incidence rates.

Results showed that the risk for cancer was higher in the younger age group than in the matched general population.

In this age group, the 1-year risk of any new cancer was 2.6 times higher (95% confidence interval, 2.2-3.1) after ischemic stroke and 5.4 times (95% CI, 3.8-7.3) after intracerebral hemorrhage than in matched peers from the general population.

In contrast, in stroke patients older than 50 years, the 1-year risk for any new cancer was 1.2 times higher than the general population after either ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke.

“The younger patients have a higher risk increase of cancer than older patients, and this risk increase is most evident in the first 1 to 2 years after stroke but remains statistically significant for up to 5 to 8 years later,” Dr. Verhoeven said.

The cancers that were most involved in this risk increase were those of the lower respiratory tract, hematologic cancers, and gastrointestinal cancers.

The main strength of this study was the use of national databases that allowed for a very large sample size, but this brings with it the danger of misclassification of events and the lack of clinical data, Dr. Verhoeven noted.

“Young stroke patients are at increased risk of developing a new cancer in the years following their stroke compared to peers from the general population, but this risk is only marginally increased in the older stroke population,” she concluded.

She pointed out that it is not possible to confirm any causal relation from this study design, but a clear association has been shown.

“We need more studies into this field. We need a large clinical dataset to examine which clinical phenotypes are associated with possible underlying cancers to identify which patients are most at risk. We are already working on this,” she said. “Then it remains to be investigated whether screening for an underlying cancer should be added to the diagnostic workup in young stroke patients.”

Commenting on the study after the presentation, William Whiteley, BM, PhD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and a consultant neurologist in NHS Lothian, said it was difficult to know whether the link shown between stroke and cancer was causal, but the effect size in this study was “quite large.”

He pointed out that the associations with bowel and lung cancer could be due to shared risk factors, such as smoking, but he said the finding on a link with hematologic cancers is “interesting.”

Noting that there are links between hematologic cancers and thrombotic events, he said: “People have wondered if that is because of clonal expansion, which has been shown to increase the risk of atherosclerosis, so the question is whether this is some kind of common risk factor here.”

Dr. Verhoeven said she did not believe that shared risk factors fully explained the difference in increased risks between young and older patients.

“It does not fully explain why the risk of cancer is specifically higher in the first 1 to 2 years after the stroke diagnosis. I would think if it was just shared risk factors, the risk increase should remain relatively stable, or even increase due to the build-up of exposure to risk factors over the years,” she said.

Dr. Whiteley said that data like these are “really useful in trying to estimate these associations and it gives us some hypotheses to investigate in smaller mechanistic studies.”

Asked whether these data justify screening younger cryptogenic stroke patients more systematically for cancer, Dr. Whiteley replied: “I think we need some absolute risk estimates for that; for example, what proportion of younger patients would be at risk over the next few years when that screening would make a difference.”

Dr. Verhoeven reports no disclosures.

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

Use of oral ondansetron for acute gastroenteritis in children in an emergency setting increased significantly between 2006 and 2018, but use of intravenous fluids remained consistent, based on data from a cross-sectional analysis.

Recommendations for managing acute gastroenteritis in children include oral rehydration therapy for mild to moderate cases and intravenous rehydration for severe cases, Brett Burstein, MDCM, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues wrote.

Oral ondansetron has been shown to reduce vomiting and the need for intravenous rehydration, as well as reduce the need for hospitalization in children with evidence of dehydration, but has no significant benefits for children who are not dehydrated, the researchers noted.

“Given the high prevalence and costs associated with acute gastroenteritis treatment for children, understanding national trends in management in a broad, generalizable sample is important,” they wrote.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from Jan. 1, 2006, to Dec. 31, 2018. They analyzed ED visits by individuals younger than 18 years with either a primary discharge diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis or a primary diagnosis of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or dehydration with a secondary diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis. The study population included 4,122 patients with a mean age of 4.8 years. Approximately 85% of the visits were to nonacademic EDs, and 80% were to nonpediatric EDs.

Overall, ED visits for acute gastroenteritis increased over time, from 1.23 million in 2006 to 1.87 million in 2018 (P = .03 for trend). ED visits for acute gastroenteritis also increased significantly as a proportion of all ED pediatric visits, from 4.7% in 2006 to 5.6% in 2018 (P = .02 for trend).

Notably, the use of ondansetron increased from 10.6% in 2006 to 59.2% in 2018; however, intravenous rehydration and hospitalizations remained consistent over the study period, the researchers wrote. Approximately half of children who received intravenous fluids (53.9%) and those hospitalized (49.1%) also received ondansetron.

“Approximately half of children administered intravenous fluids or hospitalized did not receive ondansetron, suggesting that many children without dehydration receive ondansetron with limited benefit, whereas those most likely to benefit receive intravenous fluids without an adequate trial of ondansetron and oral rehydration therapy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on detailed patient-level information such as severity of dehydration, the researchers noted. Other limitations include lack of data on return visits and lack of data on the route of medication administration, which means that the perceived lack of benefit from ondansetron may be the result of children treated with both intravenous ondansetron and fluids, they said.

“Ondansetron-supported oral rehydration therapy for appropriately selected children can achieve intravenous rehydration rates of 9%, more than threefold lower than 2018 national estimates,” and more initiatives are needed to optimize ondansetron and reduce the excessive use of intravenous fluids, the researchers concluded.
 

Emergency care setting may promote IV fluid use

“Acute gastroenteritis has remained a major cause of pediatric morbidity and mortality worldwide with significant costs for the health care system,” Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice who was not involved in the current study, said in an interview. “The authors highlight that although ondansetron use for acute gastroenteritis in the ED has increased substantially, there are still a number of children who receive intravenous fluids in the ED without a trial of ondansetron and [oral rehydration therapy] first. For the individual patient, it is not surprising that the fast-paced culture of the ED doesn’t cater to a watchful waiting approach. This highlights the need for a more protocol-based algorithm for care of these patients upon check-in.

“Often the practice in the ED is a single dose of ondansetron, followed by attempts at oral rehydration 30 minutes later,” said Dr. Joos. “It would be interesting to know the extent that outpatient clinics are practicing this model prior to sending the patient on to the ED. Despite it becoming a common practice, there is still ongoing research into the efficacy and safety of multidose oral ondansetron at home in reducing ED visits/hospitalizations.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Burstein received a career award from the Quebec Health Research Fund.

Use of oral ondansetron for acute gastroenteritis in children in an emergency setting increased significantly between 2006 and 2018, but use of intravenous fluids remained consistent, based on data from a cross-sectional analysis.

Recommendations for managing acute gastroenteritis in children include oral rehydration therapy for mild to moderate cases and intravenous rehydration for severe cases, Brett Burstein, MDCM, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues wrote.

Oral ondansetron has been shown to reduce vomiting and the need for intravenous rehydration, as well as reduce the need for hospitalization in children with evidence of dehydration, but has no significant benefits for children who are not dehydrated, the researchers noted.

“Given the high prevalence and costs associated with acute gastroenteritis treatment for children, understanding national trends in management in a broad, generalizable sample is important,” they wrote.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from Jan. 1, 2006, to Dec. 31, 2018. They analyzed ED visits by individuals younger than 18 years with either a primary discharge diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis or a primary diagnosis of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or dehydration with a secondary diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis. The study population included 4,122 patients with a mean age of 4.8 years. Approximately 85% of the visits were to nonacademic EDs, and 80% were to nonpediatric EDs.

Overall, ED visits for acute gastroenteritis increased over time, from 1.23 million in 2006 to 1.87 million in 2018 (P = .03 for trend). ED visits for acute gastroenteritis also increased significantly as a proportion of all ED pediatric visits, from 4.7% in 2006 to 5.6% in 2018 (P = .02 for trend).

Notably, the use of ondansetron increased from 10.6% in 2006 to 59.2% in 2018; however, intravenous rehydration and hospitalizations remained consistent over the study period, the researchers wrote. Approximately half of children who received intravenous fluids (53.9%) and those hospitalized (49.1%) also received ondansetron.

“Approximately half of children administered intravenous fluids or hospitalized did not receive ondansetron, suggesting that many children without dehydration receive ondansetron with limited benefit, whereas those most likely to benefit receive intravenous fluids without an adequate trial of ondansetron and oral rehydration therapy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on detailed patient-level information such as severity of dehydration, the researchers noted. Other limitations include lack of data on return visits and lack of data on the route of medication administration, which means that the perceived lack of benefit from ondansetron may be the result of children treated with both intravenous ondansetron and fluids, they said.

“Ondansetron-supported oral rehydration therapy for appropriately selected children can achieve intravenous rehydration rates of 9%, more than threefold lower than 2018 national estimates,” and more initiatives are needed to optimize ondansetron and reduce the excessive use of intravenous fluids, the researchers concluded.
 

Emergency care setting may promote IV fluid use

“Acute gastroenteritis has remained a major cause of pediatric morbidity and mortality worldwide with significant costs for the health care system,” Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice who was not involved in the current study, said in an interview. “The authors highlight that although ondansetron use for acute gastroenteritis in the ED has increased substantially, there are still a number of children who receive intravenous fluids in the ED without a trial of ondansetron and [oral rehydration therapy] first. For the individual patient, it is not surprising that the fast-paced culture of the ED doesn’t cater to a watchful waiting approach. This highlights the need for a more protocol-based algorithm for care of these patients upon check-in.

“Often the practice in the ED is a single dose of ondansetron, followed by attempts at oral rehydration 30 minutes later,” said Dr. Joos. “It would be interesting to know the extent that outpatient clinics are practicing this model prior to sending the patient on to the ED. Despite it becoming a common practice, there is still ongoing research into the efficacy and safety of multidose oral ondansetron at home in reducing ED visits/hospitalizations.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Burstein received a career award from the Quebec Health Research Fund.

Use of oral ondansetron for acute gastroenteritis in children in an emergency setting increased significantly between 2006 and 2018, but use of intravenous fluids remained consistent, based on data from a cross-sectional analysis.

Recommendations for managing acute gastroenteritis in children include oral rehydration therapy for mild to moderate cases and intravenous rehydration for severe cases, Brett Burstein, MDCM, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues wrote.

Oral ondansetron has been shown to reduce vomiting and the need for intravenous rehydration, as well as reduce the need for hospitalization in children with evidence of dehydration, but has no significant benefits for children who are not dehydrated, the researchers noted.

“Given the high prevalence and costs associated with acute gastroenteritis treatment for children, understanding national trends in management in a broad, generalizable sample is important,” they wrote.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from Jan. 1, 2006, to Dec. 31, 2018. They analyzed ED visits by individuals younger than 18 years with either a primary discharge diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis or a primary diagnosis of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or dehydration with a secondary diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis. The study population included 4,122 patients with a mean age of 4.8 years. Approximately 85% of the visits were to nonacademic EDs, and 80% were to nonpediatric EDs.

Overall, ED visits for acute gastroenteritis increased over time, from 1.23 million in 2006 to 1.87 million in 2018 (P = .03 for trend). ED visits for acute gastroenteritis also increased significantly as a proportion of all ED pediatric visits, from 4.7% in 2006 to 5.6% in 2018 (P = .02 for trend).

Notably, the use of ondansetron increased from 10.6% in 2006 to 59.2% in 2018; however, intravenous rehydration and hospitalizations remained consistent over the study period, the researchers wrote. Approximately half of children who received intravenous fluids (53.9%) and those hospitalized (49.1%) also received ondansetron.

“Approximately half of children administered intravenous fluids or hospitalized did not receive ondansetron, suggesting that many children without dehydration receive ondansetron with limited benefit, whereas those most likely to benefit receive intravenous fluids without an adequate trial of ondansetron and oral rehydration therapy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on detailed patient-level information such as severity of dehydration, the researchers noted. Other limitations include lack of data on return visits and lack of data on the route of medication administration, which means that the perceived lack of benefit from ondansetron may be the result of children treated with both intravenous ondansetron and fluids, they said.

“Ondansetron-supported oral rehydration therapy for appropriately selected children can achieve intravenous rehydration rates of 9%, more than threefold lower than 2018 national estimates,” and more initiatives are needed to optimize ondansetron and reduce the excessive use of intravenous fluids, the researchers concluded.
 

Emergency care setting may promote IV fluid use

“Acute gastroenteritis has remained a major cause of pediatric morbidity and mortality worldwide with significant costs for the health care system,” Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice who was not involved in the current study, said in an interview. “The authors highlight that although ondansetron use for acute gastroenteritis in the ED has increased substantially, there are still a number of children who receive intravenous fluids in the ED without a trial of ondansetron and [oral rehydration therapy] first. For the individual patient, it is not surprising that the fast-paced culture of the ED doesn’t cater to a watchful waiting approach. This highlights the need for a more protocol-based algorithm for care of these patients upon check-in.

“Often the practice in the ED is a single dose of ondansetron, followed by attempts at oral rehydration 30 minutes later,” said Dr. Joos. “It would be interesting to know the extent that outpatient clinics are practicing this model prior to sending the patient on to the ED. Despite it becoming a common practice, there is still ongoing research into the efficacy and safety of multidose oral ondansetron at home in reducing ED visits/hospitalizations.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Burstein received a career award from the Quebec Health Research Fund.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its recommendations for doctors and public health officials regarding the unusual outbreak of acute hepatitis among children.

As of May 5, the CDC and state health departments are investigating 109 children with hepatitis of unknown origin across 25 states and territories.

More than half have tested positive for adenovirus, the CDC said. More than 90% have been hospitalized, and 14% have had liver transplants. Five deaths are under investigation.

This week’s CDC alert provides updated recommendations for testing, given the potential association between adenovirus infection and pediatric hepatitis, or liver inflammation.

“Clinicians are recommended to consider adenovirus testing for patients with hepatitis of unknown etiology and to report such cases to their state or jurisdictional public health authorities,” the CDC said.

Doctors should also consider collecting a blood sample, respiratory sample, and stool sample. They may also collect liver tissue if a biopsy occurred or an autopsy is available.

In November 2021, clinicians at a large children’s hospital in Alabama notified the CDC about five pediatric patients with significant liver injury, including three with acute liver failure, who also tested positive for adenovirus. All children were previously healthy, and none had COVID-19, according to a CDC alert in April.

Four additional pediatric patients with hepatitis and adenovirus infection were identified. After lab testing found adenovirus infection in all nine patients in the initial cluster, public health officials began investigating a possible association between pediatric hepatitis and adenovirus. Among the five specimens that could be sequenced, they were all adenovirus type 41.

Unexplained hepatitis cases have been reported in children worldwide, reaching 450 cases and 11 deaths, according to the latest update from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

The cases have been reported in more than two dozen countries around the world, with 14 countries reporting more than five cases. The United Kingdom and the United States have reported the largest case counts so far.

In the United Kingdom, officials have identified 163 cases in children under age 16 years, including 11 that required liver transplants.

In the European Union, 14 countries have reported 106 cases collectively, with Italy reporting 35 cases and Spain reporting 22 cases. Outside of the European Union, Brazil has reported 16, Indonesia has reported 15, and Israel has reported 12.

Among the 11 deaths reported globally, the Uniyed States has reported five, Indonesia has reported five, and Palestine has reported one.

The cause of severe hepatitis remains a mystery, according to Ars Technica. Some cases have been identified retrospectively, dating back to the beginning of October 2021.

About 70% of the cases that have been tested for an adenovirus have tested positive, and subtype testing continues to show adenovirus type 41. The cases don’t appear to be linked to common causes, such as hepatitis viruses A, B, C, D, or E, which can cause liver inflammation and injury.

Adenoviruses aren’t known to cause hepatitis in healthy children, though the viruses have been linked to liver damage in children with compromised immune systems, according to Ars Technica. Adenoviruses typically cause respiratory infections in children, although type 41 tends to cause gastrointestinal illness.

“At present, the leading hypotheses remain those which involve adenovirus,” Philippa Easterbrook, a senior scientist at the WHO, said May 10 during a press briefing.

“I think [there’s] also still an important consideration about the role of COVID as well, either as a co-infection or as a past infection,” she said.

WHO officials expect data within a week from U.K. cases, Ms. Easterbrook said, which may indicate whether the adenovirus is an incidental infection or a more direct cause.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its recommendations for doctors and public health officials regarding the unusual outbreak of acute hepatitis among children.

As of May 5, the CDC and state health departments are investigating 109 children with hepatitis of unknown origin across 25 states and territories.

More than half have tested positive for adenovirus, the CDC said. More than 90% have been hospitalized, and 14% have had liver transplants. Five deaths are under investigation.

This week’s CDC alert provides updated recommendations for testing, given the potential association between adenovirus infection and pediatric hepatitis, or liver inflammation.

“Clinicians are recommended to consider adenovirus testing for patients with hepatitis of unknown etiology and to report such cases to their state or jurisdictional public health authorities,” the CDC said.

Doctors should also consider collecting a blood sample, respiratory sample, and stool sample. They may also collect liver tissue if a biopsy occurred or an autopsy is available.

In November 2021, clinicians at a large children’s hospital in Alabama notified the CDC about five pediatric patients with significant liver injury, including three with acute liver failure, who also tested positive for adenovirus. All children were previously healthy, and none had COVID-19, according to a CDC alert in April.

Four additional pediatric patients with hepatitis and adenovirus infection were identified. After lab testing found adenovirus infection in all nine patients in the initial cluster, public health officials began investigating a possible association between pediatric hepatitis and adenovirus. Among the five specimens that could be sequenced, they were all adenovirus type 41.

Unexplained hepatitis cases have been reported in children worldwide, reaching 450 cases and 11 deaths, according to the latest update from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

The cases have been reported in more than two dozen countries around the world, with 14 countries reporting more than five cases. The United Kingdom and the United States have reported the largest case counts so far.

In the United Kingdom, officials have identified 163 cases in children under age 16 years, including 11 that required liver transplants.

In the European Union, 14 countries have reported 106 cases collectively, with Italy reporting 35 cases and Spain reporting 22 cases. Outside of the European Union, Brazil has reported 16, Indonesia has reported 15, and Israel has reported 12.

Among the 11 deaths reported globally, the Uniyed States has reported five, Indonesia has reported five, and Palestine has reported one.

The cause of severe hepatitis remains a mystery, according to Ars Technica. Some cases have been identified retrospectively, dating back to the beginning of October 2021.

About 70% of the cases that have been tested for an adenovirus have tested positive, and subtype testing continues to show adenovirus type 41. The cases don’t appear to be linked to common causes, such as hepatitis viruses A, B, C, D, or E, which can cause liver inflammation and injury.

Adenoviruses aren’t known to cause hepatitis in healthy children, though the viruses have been linked to liver damage in children with compromised immune systems, according to Ars Technica. Adenoviruses typically cause respiratory infections in children, although type 41 tends to cause gastrointestinal illness.

“At present, the leading hypotheses remain those which involve adenovirus,” Philippa Easterbrook, a senior scientist at the WHO, said May 10 during a press briefing.

“I think [there’s] also still an important consideration about the role of COVID as well, either as a co-infection or as a past infection,” she said.

WHO officials expect data within a week from U.K. cases, Ms. Easterbrook said, which may indicate whether the adenovirus is an incidental infection or a more direct cause.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its recommendations for doctors and public health officials regarding the unusual outbreak of acute hepatitis among children.

As of May 5, the CDC and state health departments are investigating 109 children with hepatitis of unknown origin across 25 states and territories.

More than half have tested positive for adenovirus, the CDC said. More than 90% have been hospitalized, and 14% have had liver transplants. Five deaths are under investigation.

This week’s CDC alert provides updated recommendations for testing, given the potential association between adenovirus infection and pediatric hepatitis, or liver inflammation.

“Clinicians are recommended to consider adenovirus testing for patients with hepatitis of unknown etiology and to report such cases to their state or jurisdictional public health authorities,” the CDC said.

Doctors should also consider collecting a blood sample, respiratory sample, and stool sample. They may also collect liver tissue if a biopsy occurred or an autopsy is available.

In November 2021, clinicians at a large children’s hospital in Alabama notified the CDC about five pediatric patients with significant liver injury, including three with acute liver failure, who also tested positive for adenovirus. All children were previously healthy, and none had COVID-19, according to a CDC alert in April.

Four additional pediatric patients with hepatitis and adenovirus infection were identified. After lab testing found adenovirus infection in all nine patients in the initial cluster, public health officials began investigating a possible association between pediatric hepatitis and adenovirus. Among the five specimens that could be sequenced, they were all adenovirus type 41.

Unexplained hepatitis cases have been reported in children worldwide, reaching 450 cases and 11 deaths, according to the latest update from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

The cases have been reported in more than two dozen countries around the world, with 14 countries reporting more than five cases. The United Kingdom and the United States have reported the largest case counts so far.

In the United Kingdom, officials have identified 163 cases in children under age 16 years, including 11 that required liver transplants.

In the European Union, 14 countries have reported 106 cases collectively, with Italy reporting 35 cases and Spain reporting 22 cases. Outside of the European Union, Brazil has reported 16, Indonesia has reported 15, and Israel has reported 12.

Among the 11 deaths reported globally, the Uniyed States has reported five, Indonesia has reported five, and Palestine has reported one.

The cause of severe hepatitis remains a mystery, according to Ars Technica. Some cases have been identified retrospectively, dating back to the beginning of October 2021.

About 70% of the cases that have been tested for an adenovirus have tested positive, and subtype testing continues to show adenovirus type 41. The cases don’t appear to be linked to common causes, such as hepatitis viruses A, B, C, D, or E, which can cause liver inflammation and injury.

Adenoviruses aren’t known to cause hepatitis in healthy children, though the viruses have been linked to liver damage in children with compromised immune systems, according to Ars Technica. Adenoviruses typically cause respiratory infections in children, although type 41 tends to cause gastrointestinal illness.

“At present, the leading hypotheses remain those which involve adenovirus,” Philippa Easterbrook, a senior scientist at the WHO, said May 10 during a press briefing.

“I think [there’s] also still an important consideration about the role of COVID as well, either as a co-infection or as a past infection,” she said.

WHO officials expect data within a week from U.K. cases, Ms. Easterbrook said, which may indicate whether the adenovirus is an incidental infection or a more direct cause.

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