MDedge Pediatrics

It seems obvious that increased use of mosquito bed nets in sub-Saharan Africa would decrease the incidence of malaria, but a lingering question remained: Would controlling malaria in children under 5 years of age shift deaths to older children by delaying functional immunity?  A new report in the New England Journal of Medicine seems to have laid that concern to rest.

Malaria from Plasmodium falciparum infection exacts a significant toll in sub-Saharan Africa. According to the World Health Organization, there were about 228 million cases and 602,000 deaths from malaria in 2020 alone. About 80% of those deaths were in children less than 5 years old. In some areas, as many as 5% of children die from malaria by age 5.

Efforts to reduce the burden of malaria have been ongoing for decades. In the 1990s, insecticide-treated nets were shown to reduce illness and deaths from malaria in children.

As a result, the use of bed nets has grown significantly. In 2000, only 5% of households in sub-Saharan Africa had a net in the house. By 2020, that number had risen to 65%. From 2004 to 2019 about 1.9 billion nets were distributed in this region. The nets are estimated to have prevented more than 663 million malaria cases between 2000 and 2015.

As described in the NEJM report, public health researchers conducted a 22-year prospective longitudinal cohort study in rural southern Tanzania following 6,706 children born between 1998 and 2000. Initially, home visits were made every 4 months from May 1998 to April 2003. Remarkably, in 2019, they were able to verify the status of fully 89% of those people by reaching out to families and community/village leaders.

Günther Fink, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology and household economics, University of Basel (Switzerland), explained the approach and primary findings to this news organization. The analysis looked at three main groups – children whose parents said they always slept under treated nets, those who slept protected most of the time, and those who spent less than half the time under bed nets. The hazard ratio for death was 0.57 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.72) for the first two groups, compared with the least protected. The corresponding hazard ratio between age 5 and adulthood was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.58-1.49).

The findings confirmed what they had suspected. Dr. Fink summarized simply, “If you always slept under a net, you did much better than if you never slept under the net. If you slept [under a net] more than half of the time, it was much better than if you slept [under a net] less than half the time.” So the more time children slept under bed nets, the less likely they were to acquire malaria. Dr. Fink stressed that the findings showing protective efficacy persisted into adulthood. “It seems just having a healthier early life actually makes you more resilient against other future infections.”

One of the theoretical concerns was that using nets would delay developing functional immunity and that there might be an increase in mortality seen later. This study showed that did not happen.

An accompanying commentary noted that there was some potential that families receiving nets were better off than those that didn’t but concluded that such confounding had been accounted for in other analyses.

Mark Wilson, ScD, professor emeritus of epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, concurred. He told this news organization that the study was “very well designed,” and the researchers “did a fantastic job” in tracking patients 20 years later.

“This is astounding!” he added. “It’s very rare to find this amount of follow-up.”

Dr. Fink’s conclusion? “Bed nets protect you in the short run, and being protected in the short run is also beneficial in the long run. There is no evidence that protecting kids in early childhood is weakening them in any way. So we should keep doing this.”

Dr. Fink and Dr. Wilson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

It seems obvious that increased use of mosquito bed nets in sub-Saharan Africa would decrease the incidence of malaria, but a lingering question remained: Would controlling malaria in children under 5 years of age shift deaths to older children by delaying functional immunity?  A new report in the New England Journal of Medicine seems to have laid that concern to rest.

Malaria from Plasmodium falciparum infection exacts a significant toll in sub-Saharan Africa. According to the World Health Organization, there were about 228 million cases and 602,000 deaths from malaria in 2020 alone. About 80% of those deaths were in children less than 5 years old. In some areas, as many as 5% of children die from malaria by age 5.

Efforts to reduce the burden of malaria have been ongoing for decades. In the 1990s, insecticide-treated nets were shown to reduce illness and deaths from malaria in children.

As a result, the use of bed nets has grown significantly. In 2000, only 5% of households in sub-Saharan Africa had a net in the house. By 2020, that number had risen to 65%. From 2004 to 2019 about 1.9 billion nets were distributed in this region. The nets are estimated to have prevented more than 663 million malaria cases between 2000 and 2015.

As described in the NEJM report, public health researchers conducted a 22-year prospective longitudinal cohort study in rural southern Tanzania following 6,706 children born between 1998 and 2000. Initially, home visits were made every 4 months from May 1998 to April 2003. Remarkably, in 2019, they were able to verify the status of fully 89% of those people by reaching out to families and community/village leaders.

Günther Fink, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology and household economics, University of Basel (Switzerland), explained the approach and primary findings to this news organization. The analysis looked at three main groups – children whose parents said they always slept under treated nets, those who slept protected most of the time, and those who spent less than half the time under bed nets. The hazard ratio for death was 0.57 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.72) for the first two groups, compared with the least protected. The corresponding hazard ratio between age 5 and adulthood was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.58-1.49).

The findings confirmed what they had suspected. Dr. Fink summarized simply, “If you always slept under a net, you did much better than if you never slept under the net. If you slept [under a net] more than half of the time, it was much better than if you slept [under a net] less than half the time.” So the more time children slept under bed nets, the less likely they were to acquire malaria. Dr. Fink stressed that the findings showing protective efficacy persisted into adulthood. “It seems just having a healthier early life actually makes you more resilient against other future infections.”

One of the theoretical concerns was that using nets would delay developing functional immunity and that there might be an increase in mortality seen later. This study showed that did not happen.

An accompanying commentary noted that there was some potential that families receiving nets were better off than those that didn’t but concluded that such confounding had been accounted for in other analyses.

Mark Wilson, ScD, professor emeritus of epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, concurred. He told this news organization that the study was “very well designed,” and the researchers “did a fantastic job” in tracking patients 20 years later.

“This is astounding!” he added. “It’s very rare to find this amount of follow-up.”

Dr. Fink’s conclusion? “Bed nets protect you in the short run, and being protected in the short run is also beneficial in the long run. There is no evidence that protecting kids in early childhood is weakening them in any way. So we should keep doing this.”

Dr. Fink and Dr. Wilson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

It seems obvious that increased use of mosquito bed nets in sub-Saharan Africa would decrease the incidence of malaria, but a lingering question remained: Would controlling malaria in children under 5 years of age shift deaths to older children by delaying functional immunity?  A new report in the New England Journal of Medicine seems to have laid that concern to rest.

Malaria from Plasmodium falciparum infection exacts a significant toll in sub-Saharan Africa. According to the World Health Organization, there were about 228 million cases and 602,000 deaths from malaria in 2020 alone. About 80% of those deaths were in children less than 5 years old. In some areas, as many as 5% of children die from malaria by age 5.

Efforts to reduce the burden of malaria have been ongoing for decades. In the 1990s, insecticide-treated nets were shown to reduce illness and deaths from malaria in children.

As a result, the use of bed nets has grown significantly. In 2000, only 5% of households in sub-Saharan Africa had a net in the house. By 2020, that number had risen to 65%. From 2004 to 2019 about 1.9 billion nets were distributed in this region. The nets are estimated to have prevented more than 663 million malaria cases between 2000 and 2015.

As described in the NEJM report, public health researchers conducted a 22-year prospective longitudinal cohort study in rural southern Tanzania following 6,706 children born between 1998 and 2000. Initially, home visits were made every 4 months from May 1998 to April 2003. Remarkably, in 2019, they were able to verify the status of fully 89% of those people by reaching out to families and community/village leaders.

Günther Fink, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology and household economics, University of Basel (Switzerland), explained the approach and primary findings to this news organization. The analysis looked at three main groups – children whose parents said they always slept under treated nets, those who slept protected most of the time, and those who spent less than half the time under bed nets. The hazard ratio for death was 0.57 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.72) for the first two groups, compared with the least protected. The corresponding hazard ratio between age 5 and adulthood was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.58-1.49).

The findings confirmed what they had suspected. Dr. Fink summarized simply, “If you always slept under a net, you did much better than if you never slept under the net. If you slept [under a net] more than half of the time, it was much better than if you slept [under a net] less than half the time.” So the more time children slept under bed nets, the less likely they were to acquire malaria. Dr. Fink stressed that the findings showing protective efficacy persisted into adulthood. “It seems just having a healthier early life actually makes you more resilient against other future infections.”

One of the theoretical concerns was that using nets would delay developing functional immunity and that there might be an increase in mortality seen later. This study showed that did not happen.

An accompanying commentary noted that there was some potential that families receiving nets were better off than those that didn’t but concluded that such confounding had been accounted for in other analyses.

Mark Wilson, ScD, professor emeritus of epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, concurred. He told this news organization that the study was “very well designed,” and the researchers “did a fantastic job” in tracking patients 20 years later.

“This is astounding!” he added. “It’s very rare to find this amount of follow-up.”

Dr. Fink’s conclusion? “Bed nets protect you in the short run, and being protected in the short run is also beneficial in the long run. There is no evidence that protecting kids in early childhood is weakening them in any way. So we should keep doing this.”

Dr. Fink and Dr. Wilson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Americans who have received a COVID-19 booster shot are 97 times less likely to die from the coronavirus than those who aren’t vaccinated, according to a new update from the CDC.

In addition, fully vaccinated Americans — meaning those with up to two doses, but no booster — are 14 times less likely to die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people.

“These data confirm that vaccination and boosting continues to protect against severe illness and hospitalization, even during the Omicron surge,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a briefing by the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“If you are not up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations, you have not optimized your protection against severe disease and death, and you should get vaccinated and boosted if you are eligible,” she said.

Dr. Walensky presented the latest numbers on Feb. 2 based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in early December. The number of average weekly deaths for those who were unvaccinated was 9.7 per 100,000 people, as compared with 0.7 of those who were vaccinated and 0.1 of those who had received a booster.

“The data are really stunningly obvious why a booster is really very important,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during the briefing.

Dr. Fauci also encouraged vaccination for those who are pregnant and couples who may want to conceive in the near feature. He highlighted two recent studies that found vaccination in either partner didn’t affect fertility, including in vitro fertilization.

Meanwhile, fertility fell temporarily among men who were infected with the coronavirus. Couples were 18% less likely to conceive if the male partner had contracted the coronavirus within 60 days before a menstrual cycle.

“New data adds to previous studies that indicate that COVID-19 vaccination does not negatively impact fertility,” Dr. Fauci said. “Vaccination is recommended for people who are trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future, as well as their partners.”

About 80% of eligible Americans have received at least one vaccine dose, and 68% are fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About 51% of those who are eligible for a booster dose have received one.

The FDA could authorize the Pfizer vaccine for children under age 5 later this month. When that happens, about 18 million children will qualify for a shot, Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said during the briefing. The Biden administration is already working on distribution plans for the shot for young kids, he added.

“We’ll be ready to start getting shots in arms soon after FDA and CDC make their decisions,” he said.

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

Americans who have received a COVID-19 booster shot are 97 times less likely to die from the coronavirus than those who aren’t vaccinated, according to a new update from the CDC.

In addition, fully vaccinated Americans — meaning those with up to two doses, but no booster — are 14 times less likely to die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people.

“These data confirm that vaccination and boosting continues to protect against severe illness and hospitalization, even during the Omicron surge,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a briefing by the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“If you are not up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations, you have not optimized your protection against severe disease and death, and you should get vaccinated and boosted if you are eligible,” she said.

Dr. Walensky presented the latest numbers on Feb. 2 based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in early December. The number of average weekly deaths for those who were unvaccinated was 9.7 per 100,000 people, as compared with 0.7 of those who were vaccinated and 0.1 of those who had received a booster.

“The data are really stunningly obvious why a booster is really very important,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during the briefing.

Dr. Fauci also encouraged vaccination for those who are pregnant and couples who may want to conceive in the near feature. He highlighted two recent studies that found vaccination in either partner didn’t affect fertility, including in vitro fertilization.

Meanwhile, fertility fell temporarily among men who were infected with the coronavirus. Couples were 18% less likely to conceive if the male partner had contracted the coronavirus within 60 days before a menstrual cycle.

“New data adds to previous studies that indicate that COVID-19 vaccination does not negatively impact fertility,” Dr. Fauci said. “Vaccination is recommended for people who are trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future, as well as their partners.”

About 80% of eligible Americans have received at least one vaccine dose, and 68% are fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About 51% of those who are eligible for a booster dose have received one.

The FDA could authorize the Pfizer vaccine for children under age 5 later this month. When that happens, about 18 million children will qualify for a shot, Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said during the briefing. The Biden administration is already working on distribution plans for the shot for young kids, he added.

“We’ll be ready to start getting shots in arms soon after FDA and CDC make their decisions,” he said.

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

Americans who have received a COVID-19 booster shot are 97 times less likely to die from the coronavirus than those who aren’t vaccinated, according to a new update from the CDC.

In addition, fully vaccinated Americans — meaning those with up to two doses, but no booster — are 14 times less likely to die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people.

“These data confirm that vaccination and boosting continues to protect against severe illness and hospitalization, even during the Omicron surge,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a briefing by the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“If you are not up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations, you have not optimized your protection against severe disease and death, and you should get vaccinated and boosted if you are eligible,” she said.

Dr. Walensky presented the latest numbers on Feb. 2 based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in early December. The number of average weekly deaths for those who were unvaccinated was 9.7 per 100,000 people, as compared with 0.7 of those who were vaccinated and 0.1 of those who had received a booster.

“The data are really stunningly obvious why a booster is really very important,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during the briefing.

Dr. Fauci also encouraged vaccination for those who are pregnant and couples who may want to conceive in the near feature. He highlighted two recent studies that found vaccination in either partner didn’t affect fertility, including in vitro fertilization.

Meanwhile, fertility fell temporarily among men who were infected with the coronavirus. Couples were 18% less likely to conceive if the male partner had contracted the coronavirus within 60 days before a menstrual cycle.

“New data adds to previous studies that indicate that COVID-19 vaccination does not negatively impact fertility,” Dr. Fauci said. “Vaccination is recommended for people who are trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future, as well as their partners.”

About 80% of eligible Americans have received at least one vaccine dose, and 68% are fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About 51% of those who are eligible for a booster dose have received one.

The FDA could authorize the Pfizer vaccine for children under age 5 later this month. When that happens, about 18 million children will qualify for a shot, Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said during the briefing. The Biden administration is already working on distribution plans for the shot for young kids, he added.

“We’ll be ready to start getting shots in arms soon after FDA and CDC make their decisions,” he said.

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

Lifestyle is more likely to affect a child’s body mass index than the weight of their mother before and during pregnancy say researchers who have found that a mother’s high BMI before and during pregnancy is not a major cause of high BMI in their offspring – indicating that childhood and teen obesity is more likely to be a result of lifestyle factors.

According to UK Government figures 9.9% of reception age children (age 4-5) are obese, with a further 13.1% overweight. At age 10-11 (year 6), 21.0% are obese and 14.1% overweight.

Research from the Centre for Longitudinal Studies (CLS) at the UCL Social Research Institute, published in December 2020, showed that one in five (21%) young people were obese at age 17, and a further one in seven (14%) were overweight.
 

Nature or nurture

Greater maternal BMI before or during pregnancy is known to be associated with higher BMI throughout childhood, but exactly how much a mother’s weight before or during pregnancy contributes to childhood obesity, or whether it is lifestyle and environmental factors that are responsible, remains unclear.

To investigate this question researchers from the University of Bristol (England) and Imperial College London used data from the “Children of the 90s” (also known as the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children), and data from the “Born in Bradford” longitudinal study.

For their study, published in BMC Medicine, researchers used Mendelian randomisation, measuring variation in genes to determine the effect of an exposure on an outcome, along with polygenic risk scores, to investigate if associations between before and during early pregnancy BMI, and a child’s BMI from birth to adolescence, are causal.

They looked at birth weight and BMI at age 1 and 4 years in both “Children of the 90s” and “Born in Bradford” participants, and then also BMI at age 10 and 15 years in just the Children of the 90s participants.

Since the effects being explored may differ by ethnicity the authors reported that they limited analyses to two ethnic groups – White European and South Asian.
 

Interventions targeting everyone needed

The researchers found that there was a moderate causal effect between maternal BMI and the birth weight of children, however they said they “found no strong evidence for a causal effect of maternal BMI on offspring adiposity beyond birth”.

Tom Bond, MSc, senior research associate at the University of Bristol, explained: “We found that if women are heavier at the start of pregnancy this isn’t a strong cause of their children being heavier as teenagers.”

The authors wrote that their results suggested that “higher maternal pre-/early-pregnancy BMI is not a key driver of higher adiposity in the next generation,” something that Mr. Bond said was “important to know”.

The authors concluded that their findings “support interventions that target the whole population for reducing overweight and obesity, rather than a specific focus on women of reproductive age”.

Mr. Bond pointed out that “it isn’t enough to just focus on women entering pregnancy.” However, “there is good evidence that maternal obesity causes other health problems for mothers and babies, so prospective mothers should still be encouraged and supported to maintain a healthy weight.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Lifestyle is more likely to affect a child’s body mass index than the weight of their mother before and during pregnancy say researchers who have found that a mother’s high BMI before and during pregnancy is not a major cause of high BMI in their offspring – indicating that childhood and teen obesity is more likely to be a result of lifestyle factors.

According to UK Government figures 9.9% of reception age children (age 4-5) are obese, with a further 13.1% overweight. At age 10-11 (year 6), 21.0% are obese and 14.1% overweight.

Research from the Centre for Longitudinal Studies (CLS) at the UCL Social Research Institute, published in December 2020, showed that one in five (21%) young people were obese at age 17, and a further one in seven (14%) were overweight.
 

Nature or nurture

Greater maternal BMI before or during pregnancy is known to be associated with higher BMI throughout childhood, but exactly how much a mother’s weight before or during pregnancy contributes to childhood obesity, or whether it is lifestyle and environmental factors that are responsible, remains unclear.

To investigate this question researchers from the University of Bristol (England) and Imperial College London used data from the “Children of the 90s” (also known as the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children), and data from the “Born in Bradford” longitudinal study.

For their study, published in BMC Medicine, researchers used Mendelian randomisation, measuring variation in genes to determine the effect of an exposure on an outcome, along with polygenic risk scores, to investigate if associations between before and during early pregnancy BMI, and a child’s BMI from birth to adolescence, are causal.

They looked at birth weight and BMI at age 1 and 4 years in both “Children of the 90s” and “Born in Bradford” participants, and then also BMI at age 10 and 15 years in just the Children of the 90s participants.

Since the effects being explored may differ by ethnicity the authors reported that they limited analyses to two ethnic groups – White European and South Asian.
 

Interventions targeting everyone needed

The researchers found that there was a moderate causal effect between maternal BMI and the birth weight of children, however they said they “found no strong evidence for a causal effect of maternal BMI on offspring adiposity beyond birth”.

Tom Bond, MSc, senior research associate at the University of Bristol, explained: “We found that if women are heavier at the start of pregnancy this isn’t a strong cause of their children being heavier as teenagers.”

The authors wrote that their results suggested that “higher maternal pre-/early-pregnancy BMI is not a key driver of higher adiposity in the next generation,” something that Mr. Bond said was “important to know”.

The authors concluded that their findings “support interventions that target the whole population for reducing overweight and obesity, rather than a specific focus on women of reproductive age”.

Mr. Bond pointed out that “it isn’t enough to just focus on women entering pregnancy.” However, “there is good evidence that maternal obesity causes other health problems for mothers and babies, so prospective mothers should still be encouraged and supported to maintain a healthy weight.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Lifestyle is more likely to affect a child’s body mass index than the weight of their mother before and during pregnancy say researchers who have found that a mother’s high BMI before and during pregnancy is not a major cause of high BMI in their offspring – indicating that childhood and teen obesity is more likely to be a result of lifestyle factors.

According to UK Government figures 9.9% of reception age children (age 4-5) are obese, with a further 13.1% overweight. At age 10-11 (year 6), 21.0% are obese and 14.1% overweight.

Research from the Centre for Longitudinal Studies (CLS) at the UCL Social Research Institute, published in December 2020, showed that one in five (21%) young people were obese at age 17, and a further one in seven (14%) were overweight.
 

Nature or nurture

Greater maternal BMI before or during pregnancy is known to be associated with higher BMI throughout childhood, but exactly how much a mother’s weight before or during pregnancy contributes to childhood obesity, or whether it is lifestyle and environmental factors that are responsible, remains unclear.

To investigate this question researchers from the University of Bristol (England) and Imperial College London used data from the “Children of the 90s” (also known as the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children), and data from the “Born in Bradford” longitudinal study.

For their study, published in BMC Medicine, researchers used Mendelian randomisation, measuring variation in genes to determine the effect of an exposure on an outcome, along with polygenic risk scores, to investigate if associations between before and during early pregnancy BMI, and a child’s BMI from birth to adolescence, are causal.

They looked at birth weight and BMI at age 1 and 4 years in both “Children of the 90s” and “Born in Bradford” participants, and then also BMI at age 10 and 15 years in just the Children of the 90s participants.

Since the effects being explored may differ by ethnicity the authors reported that they limited analyses to two ethnic groups – White European and South Asian.
 

Interventions targeting everyone needed

The researchers found that there was a moderate causal effect between maternal BMI and the birth weight of children, however they said they “found no strong evidence for a causal effect of maternal BMI on offspring adiposity beyond birth”.

Tom Bond, MSc, senior research associate at the University of Bristol, explained: “We found that if women are heavier at the start of pregnancy this isn’t a strong cause of their children being heavier as teenagers.”

The authors wrote that their results suggested that “higher maternal pre-/early-pregnancy BMI is not a key driver of higher adiposity in the next generation,” something that Mr. Bond said was “important to know”.

The authors concluded that their findings “support interventions that target the whole population for reducing overweight and obesity, rather than a specific focus on women of reproductive age”.

Mr. Bond pointed out that “it isn’t enough to just focus on women entering pregnancy.” However, “there is good evidence that maternal obesity causes other health problems for mothers and babies, so prospective mothers should still be encouraged and supported to maintain a healthy weight.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

You have a 16-year-old patient who has been doing poorly in school. He has withdrawn from his social group and quit the sports in which he excelled. He admits to using marijuana “maybe once or twice a week.” But you and his parents suspect that it is much more often and contributing to the change in his behavior and school performance.

They would prefer he not use marijuana at all but could maybe be comfortable with some arrangement in which their son could demonstrate that his usage was indeed limited to once or twice on the weekends. They ask for your help with crafting a contract that might include “some urine or blood test” that would allow them to be sure their son was adhering to the contract.

You explain to them that there are hazards associated with setting up contracts such as the one they are proposing. One revolving around the issue of trust. Another being that he may be addicted to the point that a compromise that includes scaling back his usage is unlikely to succeed. And, finally, you tell them that because of marijuana’s pharmacokinetics, their son’s urine tests will always be positive and not reflective of the how much he is using or whether he is intoxicated.

Scenarios similar to this are increasingly common for those of us living in states that have legalized recreational cannabis use. The absence of a laboratory test that can determine when a person is impaired by marijuana has made life difficult for law enforcement officers accustomed to relying on breath and blood tests for alcohol to confirm their suspicion that a driver is under the influence.

In addition, because marijuana is still detectable days after it is used, many well-paying jobs go unfilled when potential applicants are hesitant to submit to a required drug test. The quirky pharmacokinetics of cannabis are well-known to the recreational users and they see no reason to risk failing a urine test regardless of how good the job may be.

This lack of a reliable indicator of cannabis intoxication has not gone unnoticed, and in a recent study published in the journal Neuropharmacology, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston report some hopeful results using fNIRS brain scanning. The investigators observed an increase in the level of oxygenated hemoglobin concentration (HbO), which is a type of neural activity signature, in the prefrontal cortex region of the volunteers who reported being impaired.

While a brain scan may sound like an unwieldy tool to use on roadside sobriety stops, the researchers report that portable scanners – some using skull cap sensors – could be easily adapted for use by law enforcement in the field. This technology also could be used by employers on the job site to test truck drivers and heavy machine operators at the beginning of each shift, thereby allaying the fears of responsible cannabis users.

This technology might be helpful to you in advising the parents of the 16-year-old you suspect of heavy usage. It would certainly help in confirming the suspicion that he is using more often than he claims. However, the contract the parents propose still may not work. If this young man demonstrates on multiple attempts that his word can’t be trusted, technology isn’t going to be the answer.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

You have a 16-year-old patient who has been doing poorly in school. He has withdrawn from his social group and quit the sports in which he excelled. He admits to using marijuana “maybe once or twice a week.” But you and his parents suspect that it is much more often and contributing to the change in his behavior and school performance.

They would prefer he not use marijuana at all but could maybe be comfortable with some arrangement in which their son could demonstrate that his usage was indeed limited to once or twice on the weekends. They ask for your help with crafting a contract that might include “some urine or blood test” that would allow them to be sure their son was adhering to the contract.

You explain to them that there are hazards associated with setting up contracts such as the one they are proposing. One revolving around the issue of trust. Another being that he may be addicted to the point that a compromise that includes scaling back his usage is unlikely to succeed. And, finally, you tell them that because of marijuana’s pharmacokinetics, their son’s urine tests will always be positive and not reflective of the how much he is using or whether he is intoxicated.

Scenarios similar to this are increasingly common for those of us living in states that have legalized recreational cannabis use. The absence of a laboratory test that can determine when a person is impaired by marijuana has made life difficult for law enforcement officers accustomed to relying on breath and blood tests for alcohol to confirm their suspicion that a driver is under the influence.

In addition, because marijuana is still detectable days after it is used, many well-paying jobs go unfilled when potential applicants are hesitant to submit to a required drug test. The quirky pharmacokinetics of cannabis are well-known to the recreational users and they see no reason to risk failing a urine test regardless of how good the job may be.

This lack of a reliable indicator of cannabis intoxication has not gone unnoticed, and in a recent study published in the journal Neuropharmacology, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston report some hopeful results using fNIRS brain scanning. The investigators observed an increase in the level of oxygenated hemoglobin concentration (HbO), which is a type of neural activity signature, in the prefrontal cortex region of the volunteers who reported being impaired.

While a brain scan may sound like an unwieldy tool to use on roadside sobriety stops, the researchers report that portable scanners – some using skull cap sensors – could be easily adapted for use by law enforcement in the field. This technology also could be used by employers on the job site to test truck drivers and heavy machine operators at the beginning of each shift, thereby allaying the fears of responsible cannabis users.

This technology might be helpful to you in advising the parents of the 16-year-old you suspect of heavy usage. It would certainly help in confirming the suspicion that he is using more often than he claims. However, the contract the parents propose still may not work. If this young man demonstrates on multiple attempts that his word can’t be trusted, technology isn’t going to be the answer.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

You have a 16-year-old patient who has been doing poorly in school. He has withdrawn from his social group and quit the sports in which he excelled. He admits to using marijuana “maybe once or twice a week.” But you and his parents suspect that it is much more often and contributing to the change in his behavior and school performance.

They would prefer he not use marijuana at all but could maybe be comfortable with some arrangement in which their son could demonstrate that his usage was indeed limited to once or twice on the weekends. They ask for your help with crafting a contract that might include “some urine or blood test” that would allow them to be sure their son was adhering to the contract.

You explain to them that there are hazards associated with setting up contracts such as the one they are proposing. One revolving around the issue of trust. Another being that he may be addicted to the point that a compromise that includes scaling back his usage is unlikely to succeed. And, finally, you tell them that because of marijuana’s pharmacokinetics, their son’s urine tests will always be positive and not reflective of the how much he is using or whether he is intoxicated.

Scenarios similar to this are increasingly common for those of us living in states that have legalized recreational cannabis use. The absence of a laboratory test that can determine when a person is impaired by marijuana has made life difficult for law enforcement officers accustomed to relying on breath and blood tests for alcohol to confirm their suspicion that a driver is under the influence.

In addition, because marijuana is still detectable days after it is used, many well-paying jobs go unfilled when potential applicants are hesitant to submit to a required drug test. The quirky pharmacokinetics of cannabis are well-known to the recreational users and they see no reason to risk failing a urine test regardless of how good the job may be.

This lack of a reliable indicator of cannabis intoxication has not gone unnoticed, and in a recent study published in the journal Neuropharmacology, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston report some hopeful results using fNIRS brain scanning. The investigators observed an increase in the level of oxygenated hemoglobin concentration (HbO), which is a type of neural activity signature, in the prefrontal cortex region of the volunteers who reported being impaired.

While a brain scan may sound like an unwieldy tool to use on roadside sobriety stops, the researchers report that portable scanners – some using skull cap sensors – could be easily adapted for use by law enforcement in the field. This technology also could be used by employers on the job site to test truck drivers and heavy machine operators at the beginning of each shift, thereby allaying the fears of responsible cannabis users.

This technology might be helpful to you in advising the parents of the 16-year-old you suspect of heavy usage. It would certainly help in confirming the suspicion that he is using more often than he claims. However, the contract the parents propose still may not work. If this young man demonstrates on multiple attempts that his word can’t be trusted, technology isn’t going to be the answer.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Boys exposed to at least 2 hours a day of screen time by 1 year of age were significantly more likely to have an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis at 3 years, based on data from more than 80,000 children.

The World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend against any screen time for infants up to 1 year of age and 18 months of age, respectively, wrote Megumi Kushima, MA, of the University of Yamanashi (Japan), and colleagues on behalf of the Japan Environment and Children’s Study Group.

The extent to which screen time duration in infancy is associated with subsequent ASD diagnosis remains unclear, the researchers said. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has increased screen time among children worldwide, which makes an examination of the impact of screen time on children’s health an important public health issue.

In a study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers recruited pregnant women between 2011 and 2014; data were analyzed in December 2020. The final study population included 84,030 mother-child pairs. The primary exposure of screen time at 1 year of age was assessed by questionnaire, in which mothers were asked to report their number of hours they let their child watch TV or DVDs daily. Responses were none (no screen time), less than 1 hour, 1 hour or more but less than 2 hours, 2 hours or more but less than 4 hours, and 4 hours or more.

The primary outcome was ASD diagnosis at 3 years of age, and mothers were asked via questionnaire whether their 3-year-old had been diagnosed with ASD from age 2.

The study was conducted by the Japan Environment and Children’s Study Group at 15 regional centers across Japan.

Overall, 330 children had received an ASD diagnosis at age 3 years, a prevalence of 0.4%. Of these, 251 (76%) were boys, and 79 (24%) were girls. Independent of ASD, the most common response for screen time was less than 1 hour, which was reported by 27,707 mothers. The proportion of children with ASD at age 3 increased as screen time at age 1 increased, the percentages were 5.8%, 22.3%, 30.2%, and 31.7% for children with no screen time, less than 1 hour, 1 to less than 2 hours, and 2 to less than 4 hours, respectively. The percentage of children with ASD diagnoses who had 4 hours or more of daily screen time was 10%.

Logistic regression analysis showed that longer screen time at age 1 year was significantly associated with higher odds of ASD at 3 years in boys, but not in girls. The researchers controlled for variables including maternal maltreatment and children’s predisposition to ASD. Among boys, the adjusted odds ratios for screen times of less than 1 hour, 1 hour to less than 2 hours, 2 hours to less than 4 hours, and more than 4 hours were 1.38, 2.16, 3.48, and 3.02, respectively.

Screen time at age 3 years was not associated with ASD diagnosis at age 3 years, potentially “because the association with environmental factors on brain development varies with age,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on parental reports of screen time and potential for reporting bias, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the possible missed diagnoses of mild ASD cases at 3 years, and the inability to consider variables such as childcare environment, living conditions, diseases, genetics, and disabilities.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and examination of screen time in early childhood, they said. More research is needed to examine other factors that contribute to the association between ASD and screen time, but given the rapid increase in device use in children, “it is necessary to review its health effects on infants and control excessive screen time.”
 

Strong study, but some gaps appear

The study is strong in many respects, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

However, “what I am not sure they addressed is that children on the spectrum are often not entertained by basic toys and may be hard to manage behaviorally,” Dr. Kinsella said. Consequently, parents may be more inclined to offer screen time as a way to pacify children with behavioral difficulties. “Parents also may see that their children are happier interacting with devices, so they may be more apt to let them continue with screen time.We know screen time is not good for the developing brain, however; I worry that the message from this study is that screen time causes autism in boys.

“What I would have liked to know from the parents who allowed more screen time was why they were offering it,” Dr. Kinsella said. “Was it because their child was difficult behaviorally or because that is the one place that they seemed to have satisfaction? To me, that would indicate the reverse hypothesis.” That said, the study findings “remind us to counsel families about screen time, especially in the age of COVID-19. Kids are home much longer than usual, which ultimately leads to more screen time.”

The study was funded by the Japanese Ministry of Environment. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves as a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

Boys exposed to at least 2 hours a day of screen time by 1 year of age were significantly more likely to have an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis at 3 years, based on data from more than 80,000 children.

The World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend against any screen time for infants up to 1 year of age and 18 months of age, respectively, wrote Megumi Kushima, MA, of the University of Yamanashi (Japan), and colleagues on behalf of the Japan Environment and Children’s Study Group.

The extent to which screen time duration in infancy is associated with subsequent ASD diagnosis remains unclear, the researchers said. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has increased screen time among children worldwide, which makes an examination of the impact of screen time on children’s health an important public health issue.

In a study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers recruited pregnant women between 2011 and 2014; data were analyzed in December 2020. The final study population included 84,030 mother-child pairs. The primary exposure of screen time at 1 year of age was assessed by questionnaire, in which mothers were asked to report their number of hours they let their child watch TV or DVDs daily. Responses were none (no screen time), less than 1 hour, 1 hour or more but less than 2 hours, 2 hours or more but less than 4 hours, and 4 hours or more.

The primary outcome was ASD diagnosis at 3 years of age, and mothers were asked via questionnaire whether their 3-year-old had been diagnosed with ASD from age 2.

The study was conducted by the Japan Environment and Children’s Study Group at 15 regional centers across Japan.

Overall, 330 children had received an ASD diagnosis at age 3 years, a prevalence of 0.4%. Of these, 251 (76%) were boys, and 79 (24%) were girls. Independent of ASD, the most common response for screen time was less than 1 hour, which was reported by 27,707 mothers. The proportion of children with ASD at age 3 increased as screen time at age 1 increased, the percentages were 5.8%, 22.3%, 30.2%, and 31.7% for children with no screen time, less than 1 hour, 1 to less than 2 hours, and 2 to less than 4 hours, respectively. The percentage of children with ASD diagnoses who had 4 hours or more of daily screen time was 10%.

Logistic regression analysis showed that longer screen time at age 1 year was significantly associated with higher odds of ASD at 3 years in boys, but not in girls. The researchers controlled for variables including maternal maltreatment and children’s predisposition to ASD. Among boys, the adjusted odds ratios for screen times of less than 1 hour, 1 hour to less than 2 hours, 2 hours to less than 4 hours, and more than 4 hours were 1.38, 2.16, 3.48, and 3.02, respectively.

Screen time at age 3 years was not associated with ASD diagnosis at age 3 years, potentially “because the association with environmental factors on brain development varies with age,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on parental reports of screen time and potential for reporting bias, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the possible missed diagnoses of mild ASD cases at 3 years, and the inability to consider variables such as childcare environment, living conditions, diseases, genetics, and disabilities.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and examination of screen time in early childhood, they said. More research is needed to examine other factors that contribute to the association between ASD and screen time, but given the rapid increase in device use in children, “it is necessary to review its health effects on infants and control excessive screen time.”
 

Strong study, but some gaps appear

The study is strong in many respects, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

However, “what I am not sure they addressed is that children on the spectrum are often not entertained by basic toys and may be hard to manage behaviorally,” Dr. Kinsella said. Consequently, parents may be more inclined to offer screen time as a way to pacify children with behavioral difficulties. “Parents also may see that their children are happier interacting with devices, so they may be more apt to let them continue with screen time.We know screen time is not good for the developing brain, however; I worry that the message from this study is that screen time causes autism in boys.

“What I would have liked to know from the parents who allowed more screen time was why they were offering it,” Dr. Kinsella said. “Was it because their child was difficult behaviorally or because that is the one place that they seemed to have satisfaction? To me, that would indicate the reverse hypothesis.” That said, the study findings “remind us to counsel families about screen time, especially in the age of COVID-19. Kids are home much longer than usual, which ultimately leads to more screen time.”

The study was funded by the Japanese Ministry of Environment. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves as a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

Boys exposed to at least 2 hours a day of screen time by 1 year of age were significantly more likely to have an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis at 3 years, based on data from more than 80,000 children.

The World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend against any screen time for infants up to 1 year of age and 18 months of age, respectively, wrote Megumi Kushima, MA, of the University of Yamanashi (Japan), and colleagues on behalf of the Japan Environment and Children’s Study Group.

The extent to which screen time duration in infancy is associated with subsequent ASD diagnosis remains unclear, the researchers said. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has increased screen time among children worldwide, which makes an examination of the impact of screen time on children’s health an important public health issue.

In a study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers recruited pregnant women between 2011 and 2014; data were analyzed in December 2020. The final study population included 84,030 mother-child pairs. The primary exposure of screen time at 1 year of age was assessed by questionnaire, in which mothers were asked to report their number of hours they let their child watch TV or DVDs daily. Responses were none (no screen time), less than 1 hour, 1 hour or more but less than 2 hours, 2 hours or more but less than 4 hours, and 4 hours or more.

The primary outcome was ASD diagnosis at 3 years of age, and mothers were asked via questionnaire whether their 3-year-old had been diagnosed with ASD from age 2.

The study was conducted by the Japan Environment and Children’s Study Group at 15 regional centers across Japan.

Overall, 330 children had received an ASD diagnosis at age 3 years, a prevalence of 0.4%. Of these, 251 (76%) were boys, and 79 (24%) were girls. Independent of ASD, the most common response for screen time was less than 1 hour, which was reported by 27,707 mothers. The proportion of children with ASD at age 3 increased as screen time at age 1 increased, the percentages were 5.8%, 22.3%, 30.2%, and 31.7% for children with no screen time, less than 1 hour, 1 to less than 2 hours, and 2 to less than 4 hours, respectively. The percentage of children with ASD diagnoses who had 4 hours or more of daily screen time was 10%.

Logistic regression analysis showed that longer screen time at age 1 year was significantly associated with higher odds of ASD at 3 years in boys, but not in girls. The researchers controlled for variables including maternal maltreatment and children’s predisposition to ASD. Among boys, the adjusted odds ratios for screen times of less than 1 hour, 1 hour to less than 2 hours, 2 hours to less than 4 hours, and more than 4 hours were 1.38, 2.16, 3.48, and 3.02, respectively.

Screen time at age 3 years was not associated with ASD diagnosis at age 3 years, potentially “because the association with environmental factors on brain development varies with age,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on parental reports of screen time and potential for reporting bias, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the possible missed diagnoses of mild ASD cases at 3 years, and the inability to consider variables such as childcare environment, living conditions, diseases, genetics, and disabilities.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and examination of screen time in early childhood, they said. More research is needed to examine other factors that contribute to the association between ASD and screen time, but given the rapid increase in device use in children, “it is necessary to review its health effects on infants and control excessive screen time.”
 

Strong study, but some gaps appear

The study is strong in many respects, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

However, “what I am not sure they addressed is that children on the spectrum are often not entertained by basic toys and may be hard to manage behaviorally,” Dr. Kinsella said. Consequently, parents may be more inclined to offer screen time as a way to pacify children with behavioral difficulties. “Parents also may see that their children are happier interacting with devices, so they may be more apt to let them continue with screen time.We know screen time is not good for the developing brain, however; I worry that the message from this study is that screen time causes autism in boys.

“What I would have liked to know from the parents who allowed more screen time was why they were offering it,” Dr. Kinsella said. “Was it because their child was difficult behaviorally or because that is the one place that they seemed to have satisfaction? To me, that would indicate the reverse hypothesis.” That said, the study findings “remind us to counsel families about screen time, especially in the age of COVID-19. Kids are home much longer than usual, which ultimately leads to more screen time.”

The study was funded by the Japanese Ministry of Environment. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves as a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

More than forty percent (42%) of primary care providers (PCPs) say they have been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Primary Care Physician Malpractice Report 2021. This figure is less than the overall proportion of physicians in all specialties named in a malpractice suit (51%).

More PCPs were part of lawsuits that named multiple parties (34%) than suits that named a individual practitioners (11%). Failure to make a proper diagnosis (41%) was the most common claim in malpractice suits against PCPs, followed by poor outcome/disease progression (26%), complications from treatment/surgery (17%), wrongful death (16%), and failure to treat/delayed treatment (16%).

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

The report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. The survey was available from May 21, 2021, to August 28, 2021, and included 732 family and internal medicine physicians. Most respondents had practiced medicine for more than 25 years (47%) or from 21-25 years (16%). Almost half of respondents (47%) were aged 60 years or older.

Most PCPs (63%) reported malpractice insurance premiums of less than $20,000 per year, which is more than the overall proportion for all specialists (52%). The typical premium for PCPs was $5,000-$9,999 (26%). Premium payments varied widely by geographic area, with a PCP in New York paying five times as much as a colleague in California, Tennessee, or Ohio would pay to obtain comparable coverage, the survey found.

More than 9 in 10 PCPs (91%) reported being “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” to having been part of a malpractice suit and reported being upset and anxious: “Feeling betrayed by people to whom I had provided good care, and embarrassed that my colleagues might find out,” as one internist put it. The majority (84%) of PCPs said their lawsuits were unwarranted, in line with perceptions among all specialists (83%).

The largest proportions of cases were settled before trial (35%) or were dismissed within a few months of lawsuit filing (16%). A judge or jury ruled in the plaintiff’s favor only 2% of the time. Seven percent of cases are ongoing, and 3% were settled at trial, according to the survey.

The largest number of cases (40%) took between 1 and 2 years, although 30% were less than a year. Roughly one in four cases (24%) lasted 3-5 years. Almost half (47%) of any monetary payments to plaintiffs were $100,000 or less; one-third of such payments were capped at $500,000.

Two-thirds (68%) of PCPs said that the lawsuit did not negatively affect their careers, and more than one in four (28%) said they now no longer trust patients or that they treat them differently. This change in trust is slightly higher than for specialists overall (24%).

More than 4 in 10 PCPs (41%) said they would have done nothing differently despite being sued. The largest proportion of changes other PCPs would have made included improved documentation (18%) and ordering additional tests as a hedge against a lawsuit (11%); 10% said they should never have taken on the patient in the first place.

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

More than forty percent (42%) of primary care providers (PCPs) say they have been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Primary Care Physician Malpractice Report 2021. This figure is less than the overall proportion of physicians in all specialties named in a malpractice suit (51%).

More PCPs were part of lawsuits that named multiple parties (34%) than suits that named a individual practitioners (11%). Failure to make a proper diagnosis (41%) was the most common claim in malpractice suits against PCPs, followed by poor outcome/disease progression (26%), complications from treatment/surgery (17%), wrongful death (16%), and failure to treat/delayed treatment (16%).

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

The report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. The survey was available from May 21, 2021, to August 28, 2021, and included 732 family and internal medicine physicians. Most respondents had practiced medicine for more than 25 years (47%) or from 21-25 years (16%). Almost half of respondents (47%) were aged 60 years or older.

Most PCPs (63%) reported malpractice insurance premiums of less than $20,000 per year, which is more than the overall proportion for all specialists (52%). The typical premium for PCPs was $5,000-$9,999 (26%). Premium payments varied widely by geographic area, with a PCP in New York paying five times as much as a colleague in California, Tennessee, or Ohio would pay to obtain comparable coverage, the survey found.

More than 9 in 10 PCPs (91%) reported being “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” to having been part of a malpractice suit and reported being upset and anxious: “Feeling betrayed by people to whom I had provided good care, and embarrassed that my colleagues might find out,” as one internist put it. The majority (84%) of PCPs said their lawsuits were unwarranted, in line with perceptions among all specialists (83%).

The largest proportions of cases were settled before trial (35%) or were dismissed within a few months of lawsuit filing (16%). A judge or jury ruled in the plaintiff’s favor only 2% of the time. Seven percent of cases are ongoing, and 3% were settled at trial, according to the survey.

The largest number of cases (40%) took between 1 and 2 years, although 30% were less than a year. Roughly one in four cases (24%) lasted 3-5 years. Almost half (47%) of any monetary payments to plaintiffs were $100,000 or less; one-third of such payments were capped at $500,000.

Two-thirds (68%) of PCPs said that the lawsuit did not negatively affect their careers, and more than one in four (28%) said they now no longer trust patients or that they treat them differently. This change in trust is slightly higher than for specialists overall (24%).

More than 4 in 10 PCPs (41%) said they would have done nothing differently despite being sued. The largest proportion of changes other PCPs would have made included improved documentation (18%) and ordering additional tests as a hedge against a lawsuit (11%); 10% said they should never have taken on the patient in the first place.

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

More than forty percent (42%) of primary care providers (PCPs) say they have been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Primary Care Physician Malpractice Report 2021. This figure is less than the overall proportion of physicians in all specialties named in a malpractice suit (51%).

More PCPs were part of lawsuits that named multiple parties (34%) than suits that named a individual practitioners (11%). Failure to make a proper diagnosis (41%) was the most common claim in malpractice suits against PCPs, followed by poor outcome/disease progression (26%), complications from treatment/surgery (17%), wrongful death (16%), and failure to treat/delayed treatment (16%).

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

The report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. The survey was available from May 21, 2021, to August 28, 2021, and included 732 family and internal medicine physicians. Most respondents had practiced medicine for more than 25 years (47%) or from 21-25 years (16%). Almost half of respondents (47%) were aged 60 years or older.

Most PCPs (63%) reported malpractice insurance premiums of less than $20,000 per year, which is more than the overall proportion for all specialists (52%). The typical premium for PCPs was $5,000-$9,999 (26%). Premium payments varied widely by geographic area, with a PCP in New York paying five times as much as a colleague in California, Tennessee, or Ohio would pay to obtain comparable coverage, the survey found.

More than 9 in 10 PCPs (91%) reported being “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” to having been part of a malpractice suit and reported being upset and anxious: “Feeling betrayed by people to whom I had provided good care, and embarrassed that my colleagues might find out,” as one internist put it. The majority (84%) of PCPs said their lawsuits were unwarranted, in line with perceptions among all specialists (83%).

The largest proportions of cases were settled before trial (35%) or were dismissed within a few months of lawsuit filing (16%). A judge or jury ruled in the plaintiff’s favor only 2% of the time. Seven percent of cases are ongoing, and 3% were settled at trial, according to the survey.

The largest number of cases (40%) took between 1 and 2 years, although 30% were less than a year. Roughly one in four cases (24%) lasted 3-5 years. Almost half (47%) of any monetary payments to plaintiffs were $100,000 or less; one-third of such payments were capped at $500,000.

Two-thirds (68%) of PCPs said that the lawsuit did not negatively affect their careers, and more than one in four (28%) said they now no longer trust patients or that they treat them differently. This change in trust is slightly higher than for specialists overall (24%).

More than 4 in 10 PCPs (41%) said they would have done nothing differently despite being sued. The largest proportion of changes other PCPs would have made included improved documentation (18%) and ordering additional tests as a hedge against a lawsuit (11%); 10% said they should never have taken on the patient in the first place.

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

Many factors influence a child’s subsequent susceptibility to respiratory tract infection (RTI), including breastfeeding, crowded conditions, and exposure to environmental tobacco. Now researchers have found that asymptomatic viral infection in the first days of a baby’s life are linked to a greater risk of respiratory infections in later life.

The new research, published in Nature Microbiology, was conducted as part of the Microbiome Utrecht Infant Study (MUIS), a healthy infant birth cohort study that’s been running for 6 years.

In their study, the authors explained how the respiratory tract is “populated by a specialized microbial ecosystem, which is seeded during and directly following birth,” adding that, “despite recognition of many host and environmental factors known to modulate RTI susceptibility, the mechanism by which a child develops recurrent or severe RTIs, while others remain healthy, remains largely unknown”.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh and University Medical Centre Utrecht (the Netherlands) examined nasal mucosa samples of 114 babies at various times from birth until 12 months of age. They then analyzed the gene activity of the babies’ nasal mucosa, the microbes present in the lining of the nose, and any viruses that infected the children.
 

Interferon-related mucosal gene activity

The researchers described how the microbiome – the community of microbes in the body – of a newborn baby can be influenced by many things, including delivery method, breastfeeding, antibiotics and the hospital environment. They highlighted how viruses were found to interact with a newborn’s immune system and microbiome in a way that affected both a child’s risk, and number, of subsequent infections.

They explained how when a viral infection was detected in the first days after birth, which they said largely occurred asymptomatically, specific mucosal genes were activated – genes involved with interferons – coinciding with a change in the composition of the microbiome, promoting the growth of potentially harmful microbes.

“The interferon-related gene activity caused by an early first viral infection is thought to create a proinflammatory environment that makes babies susceptible to future infections,” they said, adding that in their study they have demonstrated that “first asymptomatic viral encounters were associated with increased interferon signaling, and preceded the development of disadvantageous respiratory microbiota profiles and clinical RTIs”.
 

Proinflammatory and microbiologically perturbed environment

Debby Bogaert, PhD, chair of paediatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: “We were surprised to see viral infections occur so early in life, and go mostly unnoticed, probably because the infant’s immune system is in what is known as a state of tolerance after birth. Despite this, these infections seem to affect a normal immune development, which is important to know.”

The authors wrote that their data supports the hypothesis that first viral encounters trigger an interferon-associated proinflammatory environment, which then further drives airway inflammation and symptomatology in a “self-enforcing positive feedback loop”. They said that this “proinflammatory and microbiologically perturbed environment in turn renders an individual more vulnerable to recurrent viral-induced RTIs”.

Wouter de Steenhuijsen, PhD, postdoctoral investigator at University Medical Centre Utrecht, said: “Although further work will be needed to confirm the causality of our findings, the data from this study indicate that early-life encounters with respiratory viruses – especially during the first days of life – may set the tone for subsequent non-beneficial host-microbe interactions, which are related to an infection risk and possibly long term respiratory health.”

Dr. Bogaert added: “Only from birth onwards will an infant start to develop its microbiome. Limiting the number of viral encounters in those first days to weeks of life might be essential for a healthy immune and microbiome development, and consequently long term respiratory health.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Many factors influence a child’s subsequent susceptibility to respiratory tract infection (RTI), including breastfeeding, crowded conditions, and exposure to environmental tobacco. Now researchers have found that asymptomatic viral infection in the first days of a baby’s life are linked to a greater risk of respiratory infections in later life.

The new research, published in Nature Microbiology, was conducted as part of the Microbiome Utrecht Infant Study (MUIS), a healthy infant birth cohort study that’s been running for 6 years.

In their study, the authors explained how the respiratory tract is “populated by a specialized microbial ecosystem, which is seeded during and directly following birth,” adding that, “despite recognition of many host and environmental factors known to modulate RTI susceptibility, the mechanism by which a child develops recurrent or severe RTIs, while others remain healthy, remains largely unknown”.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh and University Medical Centre Utrecht (the Netherlands) examined nasal mucosa samples of 114 babies at various times from birth until 12 months of age. They then analyzed the gene activity of the babies’ nasal mucosa, the microbes present in the lining of the nose, and any viruses that infected the children.
 

Interferon-related mucosal gene activity

The researchers described how the microbiome – the community of microbes in the body – of a newborn baby can be influenced by many things, including delivery method, breastfeeding, antibiotics and the hospital environment. They highlighted how viruses were found to interact with a newborn’s immune system and microbiome in a way that affected both a child’s risk, and number, of subsequent infections.

They explained how when a viral infection was detected in the first days after birth, which they said largely occurred asymptomatically, specific mucosal genes were activated – genes involved with interferons – coinciding with a change in the composition of the microbiome, promoting the growth of potentially harmful microbes.

“The interferon-related gene activity caused by an early first viral infection is thought to create a proinflammatory environment that makes babies susceptible to future infections,” they said, adding that in their study they have demonstrated that “first asymptomatic viral encounters were associated with increased interferon signaling, and preceded the development of disadvantageous respiratory microbiota profiles and clinical RTIs”.
 

Proinflammatory and microbiologically perturbed environment

Debby Bogaert, PhD, chair of paediatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: “We were surprised to see viral infections occur so early in life, and go mostly unnoticed, probably because the infant’s immune system is in what is known as a state of tolerance after birth. Despite this, these infections seem to affect a normal immune development, which is important to know.”

The authors wrote that their data supports the hypothesis that first viral encounters trigger an interferon-associated proinflammatory environment, which then further drives airway inflammation and symptomatology in a “self-enforcing positive feedback loop”. They said that this “proinflammatory and microbiologically perturbed environment in turn renders an individual more vulnerable to recurrent viral-induced RTIs”.

Wouter de Steenhuijsen, PhD, postdoctoral investigator at University Medical Centre Utrecht, said: “Although further work will be needed to confirm the causality of our findings, the data from this study indicate that early-life encounters with respiratory viruses – especially during the first days of life – may set the tone for subsequent non-beneficial host-microbe interactions, which are related to an infection risk and possibly long term respiratory health.”

Dr. Bogaert added: “Only from birth onwards will an infant start to develop its microbiome. Limiting the number of viral encounters in those first days to weeks of life might be essential for a healthy immune and microbiome development, and consequently long term respiratory health.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Many factors influence a child’s subsequent susceptibility to respiratory tract infection (RTI), including breastfeeding, crowded conditions, and exposure to environmental tobacco. Now researchers have found that asymptomatic viral infection in the first days of a baby’s life are linked to a greater risk of respiratory infections in later life.

The new research, published in Nature Microbiology, was conducted as part of the Microbiome Utrecht Infant Study (MUIS), a healthy infant birth cohort study that’s been running for 6 years.

In their study, the authors explained how the respiratory tract is “populated by a specialized microbial ecosystem, which is seeded during and directly following birth,” adding that, “despite recognition of many host and environmental factors known to modulate RTI susceptibility, the mechanism by which a child develops recurrent or severe RTIs, while others remain healthy, remains largely unknown”.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh and University Medical Centre Utrecht (the Netherlands) examined nasal mucosa samples of 114 babies at various times from birth until 12 months of age. They then analyzed the gene activity of the babies’ nasal mucosa, the microbes present in the lining of the nose, and any viruses that infected the children.
 

Interferon-related mucosal gene activity

The researchers described how the microbiome – the community of microbes in the body – of a newborn baby can be influenced by many things, including delivery method, breastfeeding, antibiotics and the hospital environment. They highlighted how viruses were found to interact with a newborn’s immune system and microbiome in a way that affected both a child’s risk, and number, of subsequent infections.

They explained how when a viral infection was detected in the first days after birth, which they said largely occurred asymptomatically, specific mucosal genes were activated – genes involved with interferons – coinciding with a change in the composition of the microbiome, promoting the growth of potentially harmful microbes.

“The interferon-related gene activity caused by an early first viral infection is thought to create a proinflammatory environment that makes babies susceptible to future infections,” they said, adding that in their study they have demonstrated that “first asymptomatic viral encounters were associated with increased interferon signaling, and preceded the development of disadvantageous respiratory microbiota profiles and clinical RTIs”.
 

Proinflammatory and microbiologically perturbed environment

Debby Bogaert, PhD, chair of paediatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: “We were surprised to see viral infections occur so early in life, and go mostly unnoticed, probably because the infant’s immune system is in what is known as a state of tolerance after birth. Despite this, these infections seem to affect a normal immune development, which is important to know.”

The authors wrote that their data supports the hypothesis that first viral encounters trigger an interferon-associated proinflammatory environment, which then further drives airway inflammation and symptomatology in a “self-enforcing positive feedback loop”. They said that this “proinflammatory and microbiologically perturbed environment in turn renders an individual more vulnerable to recurrent viral-induced RTIs”.

Wouter de Steenhuijsen, PhD, postdoctoral investigator at University Medical Centre Utrecht, said: “Although further work will be needed to confirm the causality of our findings, the data from this study indicate that early-life encounters with respiratory viruses – especially during the first days of life – may set the tone for subsequent non-beneficial host-microbe interactions, which are related to an infection risk and possibly long term respiratory health.”

Dr. Bogaert added: “Only from birth onwards will an infant start to develop its microbiome. Limiting the number of viral encounters in those first days to weeks of life might be essential for a healthy immune and microbiome development, and consequently long term respiratory health.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

The world’s most valuable mouse

You’ve heard of Mighty Mouse. Now say hello to the world’s newest mouse superhero, Crypto-Mouse! After being bitten by a radioactive cryptocurrency investor, Crypto-Mouse can tap directly into the power of the blockchain itself, allowing it to perform incredible, death-defying feats of strength!

We’re going to stop right there before Crypto-Mouse gains entry into the Marvel cinematic universe. Let’s rewind to the beginning, because that’s precisely where this crazy scheme is at. In late January, a new decentralized autonomous organization, BitMouseDAO, launched to enormous … -ly little fanfare, according to Vice. Two investors as of Jan. 31. But what they lack in money they make up for in sheer ambition.

Clker-Free-Vector-Images/Pixabay

BitMouseDAO’s $100 million dollar idea is to genetically engineer mice to carry bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency and one of the most valuable. This isn’t as crazy an idea as it sounds since DNA can be modified to store information, potentially even bitcoin information. Their plan is to create a private bitcoin wallet, which will be stored in the mouse DNA, and purchase online bitcoin to store in this wallet.

BitMouseDAO, being a “collection of artists,” plans to partner with a lab to translate its private key into a specific DNA sequence to be encoded into the mice during fertilization; or, if that doesn’t work, inject them with a harmless virus that carries the key.

Since these are artists, their ultimate plan is to use their bitcoin mice to make NFTs (scratch that off your cryptocurrency bingo card) and auction them off to people. Or, as Vice put it, BitMouseDAO essentially plans to send preserved dead mice to people. Artistic dead mice! Artistic dead mice worth millions! Maybe. Even BitMouseDAO admits bitcoin could be worthless by the time the project gets off the ground.

If this all sounds completely insane, that’s because it is. But it also sounds crazy enough to work. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to write a screenplay about a scrappy group of high-tech thieves who steal a group of genetically altered bitcoin mice to sell for millions, only to keep them as their adorable pets. Trust us Hollywood, it’ll make millions!
 

Alcoholic monkeys vs. the future of feces

Which is more important, the journey or the destination? Science is all about the destination, yes? Solving the problem, saving a life, expanding horizons. That’s science. Or is it? The scientific method is a process, so does that make it a journey?

Amandad/Pixabay

For us, today’s journey begins at the University of Iowa, where investigators are trying to reduce alcohol consumption. A worthy goal, and they seem to have made some progress by targeting a liver hormone called fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21). But we’re more interested in the process right now, so bring on the alcoholic monkeys. And no, that’s not a death metal/reggae fusion band. Should be, though.

“The vervet monkey population is [composed] of alcohol avoiders, moderate alcohol drinkers, and a group of heavy drinkers,” Matthew Potthoff, PhD, and associates wrote in Cell Metabolism. When this particular bunch of heavy-drinking vervets were given FGF21, they consumed 50% less alcohol than did vehicle-treated controls, so mission accomplished.

Maybe it could be a breakfast cereal. Who wouldn’t enjoy a bowl of alcoholic monkeys in the morning?

And after breakfast, you might be ready for a digitized bowel movement, courtesy of researchers at University of California, San Diego. They’re studying ulcerative colitis (UC) by examining the gut microbiome, and their “most useful biological sample is patient stool,” according to a written statement from the university.

“Once we had all the technology to digitize the stool, the question was, is this going to tell us what’s happening in these patients? The answer turned out to be yes,” co-senior author Rob Knight, PhD, said in the statement. “Digitizing fecal material is the future.” The road to UC treatment, in other words, is paved with digital stool.

About 40% of the UC patients had elevated protease levels, and their high-protease feces were then transplanted into germ-free mice, which subsequently developed colitis and were successfully treated with protease inhibitors. And that is our final destination.

As our revered founder and mentor, Josephine Lotmevich, used to say, an alcoholic monkey in the hand is worth a number 2 in the bush.
 

Raise a glass to delinquency

You wouldn’t think that a glass of water could lead to a life of crime, but a recent study suggests just that.

PxHere

Children exposed to lead in their drinking water during their early years had a 21% higher risk of delinquency after the age of 14 years and a 38% higher risk of having a record for a serious complaint, Jackie MacDonald Gibson and associates said in a statement on Eurekalert.

Data for the study came from Wake County, N.C., which includes rural areas, wealthy exurban developments, and predominantly Black communities. The investigators compared the blood lead levels for children tested between 1998 and 2011 with juvenile delinquency reports of the same children from the N.C. Department of Public Safety.

The main culprit, they found, was well water. Blood lead levels were 11% higher in the children whose water came from private wells, compared with children using community water. About 13% of U.S. households rely on private wells, which are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, for their water supply.

The researchers said there is an urgent need for better drinking-water solutions in communities that rely on well water, whether it be through subsidized home filtration or infrastructure redevelopment.

An earlier study had estimated that preventing just one child from entering the adult criminal justice system would save $1.3 to $1.5 million in 1997 dollars. That’s about $2.2 to $2.5 million dollars today!

If you do the math, it’s not hard to see what’s cheaper (and healthier) in the long run.
 

A ‘dirty’ scam

Another one? This is just getting sad. You’ve probably heard of muds and clays being good for the skin and maybe you’ve gone to a spa and sat in a mud bath, but would you believe it if someone told you that mud can cure all your ailments? No? Neither would we. Senatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke was definitely someone who brought this strange treatment to light, but it seems like this is something that has been going on for years, even before the pandemic.

Nandan/Pixahive

A company called Black Oxygen Organics (BOO) was selling “magic dirt” for $110 per 4-ounce package. It claimed the dirt was high in fulvic acid and humic acid, which are good for many things. They were, however, literally getting this mud from bogs with landfills nearby, Mel magazine reported.

That doesn’t sound appealing at all, but wait, there’s more. People were eating, drinking, bathing, and feeding their families this sludge in hopes that they would be cured of their ailments. A lot of people jumped aboard the magic dirt train when the pandemic arose, but it quickly became clear that this mud was not as helpful as BOO claimed it to be.

“We began to receive inquiries and calls on our website with people having problems and issues. Ultimately, we sent the products out for independent testing, and then when that came back and showed that there were toxic heavy metals [lead, arsenic, and cadmium among them] at an unsafe level, that’s when we knew we had to act,” Atlanta-based attorney Matt Wetherington, who filed a federal lawsuit against BOO, told Mel.

After a very complicated series of events involving an expose by NBC, product recalls, extortion claims, and grassroots activism, BOO was shut down by both the Canadian and U.S. governments.

As always, please listen only to health care professionals when you wish to use natural remedies for illnesses and ailments.

The world’s most valuable mouse

You’ve heard of Mighty Mouse. Now say hello to the world’s newest mouse superhero, Crypto-Mouse! After being bitten by a radioactive cryptocurrency investor, Crypto-Mouse can tap directly into the power of the blockchain itself, allowing it to perform incredible, death-defying feats of strength!

We’re going to stop right there before Crypto-Mouse gains entry into the Marvel cinematic universe. Let’s rewind to the beginning, because that’s precisely where this crazy scheme is at. In late January, a new decentralized autonomous organization, BitMouseDAO, launched to enormous … -ly little fanfare, according to Vice. Two investors as of Jan. 31. But what they lack in money they make up for in sheer ambition.

Clker-Free-Vector-Images/Pixabay

BitMouseDAO’s $100 million dollar idea is to genetically engineer mice to carry bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency and one of the most valuable. This isn’t as crazy an idea as it sounds since DNA can be modified to store information, potentially even bitcoin information. Their plan is to create a private bitcoin wallet, which will be stored in the mouse DNA, and purchase online bitcoin to store in this wallet.

BitMouseDAO, being a “collection of artists,” plans to partner with a lab to translate its private key into a specific DNA sequence to be encoded into the mice during fertilization; or, if that doesn’t work, inject them with a harmless virus that carries the key.

Since these are artists, their ultimate plan is to use their bitcoin mice to make NFTs (scratch that off your cryptocurrency bingo card) and auction them off to people. Or, as Vice put it, BitMouseDAO essentially plans to send preserved dead mice to people. Artistic dead mice! Artistic dead mice worth millions! Maybe. Even BitMouseDAO admits bitcoin could be worthless by the time the project gets off the ground.

If this all sounds completely insane, that’s because it is. But it also sounds crazy enough to work. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to write a screenplay about a scrappy group of high-tech thieves who steal a group of genetically altered bitcoin mice to sell for millions, only to keep them as their adorable pets. Trust us Hollywood, it’ll make millions!
 

Alcoholic monkeys vs. the future of feces

Which is more important, the journey or the destination? Science is all about the destination, yes? Solving the problem, saving a life, expanding horizons. That’s science. Or is it? The scientific method is a process, so does that make it a journey?

Amandad/Pixabay

For us, today’s journey begins at the University of Iowa, where investigators are trying to reduce alcohol consumption. A worthy goal, and they seem to have made some progress by targeting a liver hormone called fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21). But we’re more interested in the process right now, so bring on the alcoholic monkeys. And no, that’s not a death metal/reggae fusion band. Should be, though.

“The vervet monkey population is [composed] of alcohol avoiders, moderate alcohol drinkers, and a group of heavy drinkers,” Matthew Potthoff, PhD, and associates wrote in Cell Metabolism. When this particular bunch of heavy-drinking vervets were given FGF21, they consumed 50% less alcohol than did vehicle-treated controls, so mission accomplished.

Maybe it could be a breakfast cereal. Who wouldn’t enjoy a bowl of alcoholic monkeys in the morning?

And after breakfast, you might be ready for a digitized bowel movement, courtesy of researchers at University of California, San Diego. They’re studying ulcerative colitis (UC) by examining the gut microbiome, and their “most useful biological sample is patient stool,” according to a written statement from the university.

“Once we had all the technology to digitize the stool, the question was, is this going to tell us what’s happening in these patients? The answer turned out to be yes,” co-senior author Rob Knight, PhD, said in the statement. “Digitizing fecal material is the future.” The road to UC treatment, in other words, is paved with digital stool.

About 40% of the UC patients had elevated protease levels, and their high-protease feces were then transplanted into germ-free mice, which subsequently developed colitis and were successfully treated with protease inhibitors. And that is our final destination.

As our revered founder and mentor, Josephine Lotmevich, used to say, an alcoholic monkey in the hand is worth a number 2 in the bush.
 

Raise a glass to delinquency

You wouldn’t think that a glass of water could lead to a life of crime, but a recent study suggests just that.

PxHere

Children exposed to lead in their drinking water during their early years had a 21% higher risk of delinquency after the age of 14 years and a 38% higher risk of having a record for a serious complaint, Jackie MacDonald Gibson and associates said in a statement on Eurekalert.

Data for the study came from Wake County, N.C., which includes rural areas, wealthy exurban developments, and predominantly Black communities. The investigators compared the blood lead levels for children tested between 1998 and 2011 with juvenile delinquency reports of the same children from the N.C. Department of Public Safety.

The main culprit, they found, was well water. Blood lead levels were 11% higher in the children whose water came from private wells, compared with children using community water. About 13% of U.S. households rely on private wells, which are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, for their water supply.

The researchers said there is an urgent need for better drinking-water solutions in communities that rely on well water, whether it be through subsidized home filtration or infrastructure redevelopment.

An earlier study had estimated that preventing just one child from entering the adult criminal justice system would save $1.3 to $1.5 million in 1997 dollars. That’s about $2.2 to $2.5 million dollars today!

If you do the math, it’s not hard to see what’s cheaper (and healthier) in the long run.
 

A ‘dirty’ scam

Another one? This is just getting sad. You’ve probably heard of muds and clays being good for the skin and maybe you’ve gone to a spa and sat in a mud bath, but would you believe it if someone told you that mud can cure all your ailments? No? Neither would we. Senatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke was definitely someone who brought this strange treatment to light, but it seems like this is something that has been going on for years, even before the pandemic.

Nandan/Pixahive

A company called Black Oxygen Organics (BOO) was selling “magic dirt” for $110 per 4-ounce package. It claimed the dirt was high in fulvic acid and humic acid, which are good for many things. They were, however, literally getting this mud from bogs with landfills nearby, Mel magazine reported.

That doesn’t sound appealing at all, but wait, there’s more. People were eating, drinking, bathing, and feeding their families this sludge in hopes that they would be cured of their ailments. A lot of people jumped aboard the magic dirt train when the pandemic arose, but it quickly became clear that this mud was not as helpful as BOO claimed it to be.

“We began to receive inquiries and calls on our website with people having problems and issues. Ultimately, we sent the products out for independent testing, and then when that came back and showed that there were toxic heavy metals [lead, arsenic, and cadmium among them] at an unsafe level, that’s when we knew we had to act,” Atlanta-based attorney Matt Wetherington, who filed a federal lawsuit against BOO, told Mel.

After a very complicated series of events involving an expose by NBC, product recalls, extortion claims, and grassroots activism, BOO was shut down by both the Canadian and U.S. governments.

As always, please listen only to health care professionals when you wish to use natural remedies for illnesses and ailments.

The world’s most valuable mouse

You’ve heard of Mighty Mouse. Now say hello to the world’s newest mouse superhero, Crypto-Mouse! After being bitten by a radioactive cryptocurrency investor, Crypto-Mouse can tap directly into the power of the blockchain itself, allowing it to perform incredible, death-defying feats of strength!

We’re going to stop right there before Crypto-Mouse gains entry into the Marvel cinematic universe. Let’s rewind to the beginning, because that’s precisely where this crazy scheme is at. In late January, a new decentralized autonomous organization, BitMouseDAO, launched to enormous … -ly little fanfare, according to Vice. Two investors as of Jan. 31. But what they lack in money they make up for in sheer ambition.

Clker-Free-Vector-Images/Pixabay

BitMouseDAO’s $100 million dollar idea is to genetically engineer mice to carry bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency and one of the most valuable. This isn’t as crazy an idea as it sounds since DNA can be modified to store information, potentially even bitcoin information. Their plan is to create a private bitcoin wallet, which will be stored in the mouse DNA, and purchase online bitcoin to store in this wallet.

BitMouseDAO, being a “collection of artists,” plans to partner with a lab to translate its private key into a specific DNA sequence to be encoded into the mice during fertilization; or, if that doesn’t work, inject them with a harmless virus that carries the key.

Since these are artists, their ultimate plan is to use their bitcoin mice to make NFTs (scratch that off your cryptocurrency bingo card) and auction them off to people. Or, as Vice put it, BitMouseDAO essentially plans to send preserved dead mice to people. Artistic dead mice! Artistic dead mice worth millions! Maybe. Even BitMouseDAO admits bitcoin could be worthless by the time the project gets off the ground.

If this all sounds completely insane, that’s because it is. But it also sounds crazy enough to work. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to write a screenplay about a scrappy group of high-tech thieves who steal a group of genetically altered bitcoin mice to sell for millions, only to keep them as their adorable pets. Trust us Hollywood, it’ll make millions!
 

Alcoholic monkeys vs. the future of feces

Which is more important, the journey or the destination? Science is all about the destination, yes? Solving the problem, saving a life, expanding horizons. That’s science. Or is it? The scientific method is a process, so does that make it a journey?

Amandad/Pixabay

For us, today’s journey begins at the University of Iowa, where investigators are trying to reduce alcohol consumption. A worthy goal, and they seem to have made some progress by targeting a liver hormone called fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21). But we’re more interested in the process right now, so bring on the alcoholic monkeys. And no, that’s not a death metal/reggae fusion band. Should be, though.

“The vervet monkey population is [composed] of alcohol avoiders, moderate alcohol drinkers, and a group of heavy drinkers,” Matthew Potthoff, PhD, and associates wrote in Cell Metabolism. When this particular bunch of heavy-drinking vervets were given FGF21, they consumed 50% less alcohol than did vehicle-treated controls, so mission accomplished.

Maybe it could be a breakfast cereal. Who wouldn’t enjoy a bowl of alcoholic monkeys in the morning?

And after breakfast, you might be ready for a digitized bowel movement, courtesy of researchers at University of California, San Diego. They’re studying ulcerative colitis (UC) by examining the gut microbiome, and their “most useful biological sample is patient stool,” according to a written statement from the university.

“Once we had all the technology to digitize the stool, the question was, is this going to tell us what’s happening in these patients? The answer turned out to be yes,” co-senior author Rob Knight, PhD, said in the statement. “Digitizing fecal material is the future.” The road to UC treatment, in other words, is paved with digital stool.

About 40% of the UC patients had elevated protease levels, and their high-protease feces were then transplanted into germ-free mice, which subsequently developed colitis and were successfully treated with protease inhibitors. And that is our final destination.

As our revered founder and mentor, Josephine Lotmevich, used to say, an alcoholic monkey in the hand is worth a number 2 in the bush.
 

Raise a glass to delinquency

You wouldn’t think that a glass of water could lead to a life of crime, but a recent study suggests just that.

PxHere

Children exposed to lead in their drinking water during their early years had a 21% higher risk of delinquency after the age of 14 years and a 38% higher risk of having a record for a serious complaint, Jackie MacDonald Gibson and associates said in a statement on Eurekalert.

Data for the study came from Wake County, N.C., which includes rural areas, wealthy exurban developments, and predominantly Black communities. The investigators compared the blood lead levels for children tested between 1998 and 2011 with juvenile delinquency reports of the same children from the N.C. Department of Public Safety.

The main culprit, they found, was well water. Blood lead levels were 11% higher in the children whose water came from private wells, compared with children using community water. About 13% of U.S. households rely on private wells, which are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, for their water supply.

The researchers said there is an urgent need for better drinking-water solutions in communities that rely on well water, whether it be through subsidized home filtration or infrastructure redevelopment.

An earlier study had estimated that preventing just one child from entering the adult criminal justice system would save $1.3 to $1.5 million in 1997 dollars. That’s about $2.2 to $2.5 million dollars today!

If you do the math, it’s not hard to see what’s cheaper (and healthier) in the long run.
 

A ‘dirty’ scam

Another one? This is just getting sad. You’ve probably heard of muds and clays being good for the skin and maybe you’ve gone to a spa and sat in a mud bath, but would you believe it if someone told you that mud can cure all your ailments? No? Neither would we. Senatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke was definitely someone who brought this strange treatment to light, but it seems like this is something that has been going on for years, even before the pandemic.

Nandan/Pixahive

A company called Black Oxygen Organics (BOO) was selling “magic dirt” for $110 per 4-ounce package. It claimed the dirt was high in fulvic acid and humic acid, which are good for many things. They were, however, literally getting this mud from bogs with landfills nearby, Mel magazine reported.

That doesn’t sound appealing at all, but wait, there’s more. People were eating, drinking, bathing, and feeding their families this sludge in hopes that they would be cured of their ailments. A lot of people jumped aboard the magic dirt train when the pandemic arose, but it quickly became clear that this mud was not as helpful as BOO claimed it to be.

“We began to receive inquiries and calls on our website with people having problems and issues. Ultimately, we sent the products out for independent testing, and then when that came back and showed that there were toxic heavy metals [lead, arsenic, and cadmium among them] at an unsafe level, that’s when we knew we had to act,” Atlanta-based attorney Matt Wetherington, who filed a federal lawsuit against BOO, told Mel.

After a very complicated series of events involving an expose by NBC, product recalls, extortion claims, and grassroots activism, BOO was shut down by both the Canadian and U.S. governments.

As always, please listen only to health care professionals when you wish to use natural remedies for illnesses and ailments.

Two patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who 10 years ago were among the first to receive groundbreaking chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy were still in remission a decade later, and they continued to show detectable levels of CAR T cells.

“We can now conclude that CAR T cells can actually cure patients with leukemia based on these results,” said senior author Carl H. June, MD, in a press briefing on the study published in Nature.

“The major finding from this paper is that, 10 years down the road, you can find these [CAR T] cells,” Dr. June, director of the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, added. “The cells have evolved, and that was a big surprise ... but they are still able to kill leukemia cells 10 years after infusion.”

CAR T-cell therapy, in which patients’ own T cells are removed, reprogrammed in a lab to recognize and attack cancer cells, and then infused back into the patients, has transformed treatment of various blood cancers and shows often-remarkable results in achieving remissions.

While the treatment has become a routine therapy for certain leukemias, long-term results on the fate and function of the cells over time has been highly anticipated.

In the first published observations of a 10-year follow-up of patients treated with CAR T cells, Dr. June and colleagues described the findings for two patients, both with CLL, who back in 2010 were among the first to be treated with this groundbreaking therapy at the University of Pennsylvania.

A decade later, the CAR T cells are found to have remained detectable in both patients, who achieved complete remission in their first year of treatment, and both have sustained that remission.

Notably, the cells have evolved over the years – from initially being dominated by killer T cells to being dominated primarily by proliferative CD4-positive CAR T cells – with one of the patients exclusively having CD4-positive cells at year 9.3.

“The killer T cells did the initial heavy lifting of eliminating the tumor, “ first author J. Joseph Melenhorst, PhD, said in an interview.

“Once their job was done, those cells went down to very low levels, but the CD4-positive population persisted,” said Dr. Melenhorst, who established the lab at the University of Pennsylvania to follow patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy. “[This] delayed phase of immune response against cancer is a novel insight, and we were surprised to see it.”

Dr. Melenhorst noted that the clonal makeup of the CD4-positive cells importantly stabilized and became dominated by a small number of clones, suggesting further sustainability.

When one of the two patients, Doug Olson, who participated in the press conference, donated his cells back to the center after 9.3 years, the researchers found that his cells were still capable of destroying leukemia cells in the lab.

“Ten years [post infusion], we can’t find any of the leukemia cells and we still have the CAR T cells that are on patrol and on surveillance for residual leukemia,” Dr. June said.

One challenge of the otherwise desirable elimination of leukemia cells is that some aspects of sustaining CAR T-cell activity become problematic.

“The aspect of how the remission is maintained [is] very hard to study in a patient when there is no leukemia at all,” Dr. June explained. “It could be the last cell was gone within 3 weeks [of treatment], or it could be that the [cancer cells] are coming up like whack-a-moles, and they are killed because these CAR T cells are on patrol.”

Sadly, the other CLL patient, Bill Ludwig, who was first to receive the CAR T-cell treatment, died in 2021 from COVID-19.
 

Effects in other blood diseases similar?

CAR T-cell therapy is currently approved in the United States for several blood cancers, and whether similar long-term patterns of the cells may be observed in other patient and cancer types remains to be seen, Dr. Melenhorst said.

“I think in CLL we will see something similar, but in other diseases, we have yet to learn,” he said. “It may depend on issues including which domain has been engineered into the CAR.”

While the prospect of some patients being “cured” is exciting, responses to the therapy have generally been mixed. In CLL, for instance, full remissions have been observed to be maintained in about a quarter of patients, with higher rates observed in some lymphomas and pediatric ALL patients, Dr. Melenhorst explained.

The effects of CAR T-cell therapy in solid cancers have so far been more disappointing, with no research centers reproducing the kinds of results that have been seen with blood cancers.

“There appear to be a number of reasons, including that the [solid] tumor is more complex, and these solid cancers have ways to evade the immune system that need to be overcome,” Dr. June explained.

And despite the more encouraging findings in blood cancers, even with those, “the biggest disappointment is that CAR T-cell therapy doesn’t work all the time. It doesn’t work in every patient,” coauthor David Porter, MD, the University of Pennsylvania oncologist who treated the two patients, said in the press briefing.

“I think the importance of the Nature study is that we are starting to learn the mechanisms of why and how this works, so that we can start to get at how to make it work for more people,” Dr. Porter added. “But what we do see is that, when it works, it really is beyond what we expected 10 or 11 years ago.”

Speaking in the press briefing, Mr. Olson described how several weeks after his treatment in 2010, he became very ill with what has become known as the common, short-term side effect of cytokine release syndrome.

However, after Mr. Olson recovered a few days later, Dr. Porter gave him the remarkable news that “we cannot find a single cancer cell. You appear completely free of CLL.”

Mr. Olson reported that he has since lived a “full life,” kept working, and has even run some half-marathons.

Dr. June confided that the current 10-year results far exceed the team’s early expectations for CAR T-cell therapy. “After Doug [initially] signed his informed consent document for this, we thought that the cells would all be gone within a month or 2. The fact that they have survived for 10 years was a major surprise – and a happy one at that.”

Dr. June, Dr. Melenhorst, and Dr. Porter reported holding patents related to CAR T-cell manufacturing and biomarker discovery.

Two patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who 10 years ago were among the first to receive groundbreaking chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy were still in remission a decade later, and they continued to show detectable levels of CAR T cells.

“We can now conclude that CAR T cells can actually cure patients with leukemia based on these results,” said senior author Carl H. June, MD, in a press briefing on the study published in Nature.

“The major finding from this paper is that, 10 years down the road, you can find these [CAR T] cells,” Dr. June, director of the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, added. “The cells have evolved, and that was a big surprise ... but they are still able to kill leukemia cells 10 years after infusion.”

CAR T-cell therapy, in which patients’ own T cells are removed, reprogrammed in a lab to recognize and attack cancer cells, and then infused back into the patients, has transformed treatment of various blood cancers and shows often-remarkable results in achieving remissions.

While the treatment has become a routine therapy for certain leukemias, long-term results on the fate and function of the cells over time has been highly anticipated.

In the first published observations of a 10-year follow-up of patients treated with CAR T cells, Dr. June and colleagues described the findings for two patients, both with CLL, who back in 2010 were among the first to be treated with this groundbreaking therapy at the University of Pennsylvania.

A decade later, the CAR T cells are found to have remained detectable in both patients, who achieved complete remission in their first year of treatment, and both have sustained that remission.

Notably, the cells have evolved over the years – from initially being dominated by killer T cells to being dominated primarily by proliferative CD4-positive CAR T cells – with one of the patients exclusively having CD4-positive cells at year 9.3.

“The killer T cells did the initial heavy lifting of eliminating the tumor, “ first author J. Joseph Melenhorst, PhD, said in an interview.

“Once their job was done, those cells went down to very low levels, but the CD4-positive population persisted,” said Dr. Melenhorst, who established the lab at the University of Pennsylvania to follow patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy. “[This] delayed phase of immune response against cancer is a novel insight, and we were surprised to see it.”

Dr. Melenhorst noted that the clonal makeup of the CD4-positive cells importantly stabilized and became dominated by a small number of clones, suggesting further sustainability.

When one of the two patients, Doug Olson, who participated in the press conference, donated his cells back to the center after 9.3 years, the researchers found that his cells were still capable of destroying leukemia cells in the lab.

“Ten years [post infusion], we can’t find any of the leukemia cells and we still have the CAR T cells that are on patrol and on surveillance for residual leukemia,” Dr. June said.

One challenge of the otherwise desirable elimination of leukemia cells is that some aspects of sustaining CAR T-cell activity become problematic.

“The aspect of how the remission is maintained [is] very hard to study in a patient when there is no leukemia at all,” Dr. June explained. “It could be the last cell was gone within 3 weeks [of treatment], or it could be that the [cancer cells] are coming up like whack-a-moles, and they are killed because these CAR T cells are on patrol.”

Sadly, the other CLL patient, Bill Ludwig, who was first to receive the CAR T-cell treatment, died in 2021 from COVID-19.
 

Effects in other blood diseases similar?

CAR T-cell therapy is currently approved in the United States for several blood cancers, and whether similar long-term patterns of the cells may be observed in other patient and cancer types remains to be seen, Dr. Melenhorst said.

“I think in CLL we will see something similar, but in other diseases, we have yet to learn,” he said. “It may depend on issues including which domain has been engineered into the CAR.”

While the prospect of some patients being “cured” is exciting, responses to the therapy have generally been mixed. In CLL, for instance, full remissions have been observed to be maintained in about a quarter of patients, with higher rates observed in some lymphomas and pediatric ALL patients, Dr. Melenhorst explained.

The effects of CAR T-cell therapy in solid cancers have so far been more disappointing, with no research centers reproducing the kinds of results that have been seen with blood cancers.

“There appear to be a number of reasons, including that the [solid] tumor is more complex, and these solid cancers have ways to evade the immune system that need to be overcome,” Dr. June explained.

And despite the more encouraging findings in blood cancers, even with those, “the biggest disappointment is that CAR T-cell therapy doesn’t work all the time. It doesn’t work in every patient,” coauthor David Porter, MD, the University of Pennsylvania oncologist who treated the two patients, said in the press briefing.

“I think the importance of the Nature study is that we are starting to learn the mechanisms of why and how this works, so that we can start to get at how to make it work for more people,” Dr. Porter added. “But what we do see is that, when it works, it really is beyond what we expected 10 or 11 years ago.”

Speaking in the press briefing, Mr. Olson described how several weeks after his treatment in 2010, he became very ill with what has become known as the common, short-term side effect of cytokine release syndrome.

However, after Mr. Olson recovered a few days later, Dr. Porter gave him the remarkable news that “we cannot find a single cancer cell. You appear completely free of CLL.”

Mr. Olson reported that he has since lived a “full life,” kept working, and has even run some half-marathons.

Dr. June confided that the current 10-year results far exceed the team’s early expectations for CAR T-cell therapy. “After Doug [initially] signed his informed consent document for this, we thought that the cells would all be gone within a month or 2. The fact that they have survived for 10 years was a major surprise – and a happy one at that.”

Dr. June, Dr. Melenhorst, and Dr. Porter reported holding patents related to CAR T-cell manufacturing and biomarker discovery.

Two patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who 10 years ago were among the first to receive groundbreaking chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy were still in remission a decade later, and they continued to show detectable levels of CAR T cells.

“We can now conclude that CAR T cells can actually cure patients with leukemia based on these results,” said senior author Carl H. June, MD, in a press briefing on the study published in Nature.

“The major finding from this paper is that, 10 years down the road, you can find these [CAR T] cells,” Dr. June, director of the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, added. “The cells have evolved, and that was a big surprise ... but they are still able to kill leukemia cells 10 years after infusion.”

CAR T-cell therapy, in which patients’ own T cells are removed, reprogrammed in a lab to recognize and attack cancer cells, and then infused back into the patients, has transformed treatment of various blood cancers and shows often-remarkable results in achieving remissions.

While the treatment has become a routine therapy for certain leukemias, long-term results on the fate and function of the cells over time has been highly anticipated.

In the first published observations of a 10-year follow-up of patients treated with CAR T cells, Dr. June and colleagues described the findings for two patients, both with CLL, who back in 2010 were among the first to be treated with this groundbreaking therapy at the University of Pennsylvania.

A decade later, the CAR T cells are found to have remained detectable in both patients, who achieved complete remission in their first year of treatment, and both have sustained that remission.

Notably, the cells have evolved over the years – from initially being dominated by killer T cells to being dominated primarily by proliferative CD4-positive CAR T cells – with one of the patients exclusively having CD4-positive cells at year 9.3.

“The killer T cells did the initial heavy lifting of eliminating the tumor, “ first author J. Joseph Melenhorst, PhD, said in an interview.

“Once their job was done, those cells went down to very low levels, but the CD4-positive population persisted,” said Dr. Melenhorst, who established the lab at the University of Pennsylvania to follow patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy. “[This] delayed phase of immune response against cancer is a novel insight, and we were surprised to see it.”

Dr. Melenhorst noted that the clonal makeup of the CD4-positive cells importantly stabilized and became dominated by a small number of clones, suggesting further sustainability.

When one of the two patients, Doug Olson, who participated in the press conference, donated his cells back to the center after 9.3 years, the researchers found that his cells were still capable of destroying leukemia cells in the lab.

“Ten years [post infusion], we can’t find any of the leukemia cells and we still have the CAR T cells that are on patrol and on surveillance for residual leukemia,” Dr. June said.

One challenge of the otherwise desirable elimination of leukemia cells is that some aspects of sustaining CAR T-cell activity become problematic.

“The aspect of how the remission is maintained [is] very hard to study in a patient when there is no leukemia at all,” Dr. June explained. “It could be the last cell was gone within 3 weeks [of treatment], or it could be that the [cancer cells] are coming up like whack-a-moles, and they are killed because these CAR T cells are on patrol.”

Sadly, the other CLL patient, Bill Ludwig, who was first to receive the CAR T-cell treatment, died in 2021 from COVID-19.
 

Effects in other blood diseases similar?

CAR T-cell therapy is currently approved in the United States for several blood cancers, and whether similar long-term patterns of the cells may be observed in other patient and cancer types remains to be seen, Dr. Melenhorst said.

“I think in CLL we will see something similar, but in other diseases, we have yet to learn,” he said. “It may depend on issues including which domain has been engineered into the CAR.”

While the prospect of some patients being “cured” is exciting, responses to the therapy have generally been mixed. In CLL, for instance, full remissions have been observed to be maintained in about a quarter of patients, with higher rates observed in some lymphomas and pediatric ALL patients, Dr. Melenhorst explained.

The effects of CAR T-cell therapy in solid cancers have so far been more disappointing, with no research centers reproducing the kinds of results that have been seen with blood cancers.

“There appear to be a number of reasons, including that the [solid] tumor is more complex, and these solid cancers have ways to evade the immune system that need to be overcome,” Dr. June explained.

And despite the more encouraging findings in blood cancers, even with those, “the biggest disappointment is that CAR T-cell therapy doesn’t work all the time. It doesn’t work in every patient,” coauthor David Porter, MD, the University of Pennsylvania oncologist who treated the two patients, said in the press briefing.

“I think the importance of the Nature study is that we are starting to learn the mechanisms of why and how this works, so that we can start to get at how to make it work for more people,” Dr. Porter added. “But what we do see is that, when it works, it really is beyond what we expected 10 or 11 years ago.”

Speaking in the press briefing, Mr. Olson described how several weeks after his treatment in 2010, he became very ill with what has become known as the common, short-term side effect of cytokine release syndrome.

However, after Mr. Olson recovered a few days later, Dr. Porter gave him the remarkable news that “we cannot find a single cancer cell. You appear completely free of CLL.”

Mr. Olson reported that he has since lived a “full life,” kept working, and has even run some half-marathons.

Dr. June confided that the current 10-year results far exceed the team’s early expectations for CAR T-cell therapy. “After Doug [initially] signed his informed consent document for this, we thought that the cells would all be gone within a month or 2. The fact that they have survived for 10 years was a major surprise – and a happy one at that.”

Dr. June, Dr. Melenhorst, and Dr. Porter reported holding patents related to CAR T-cell manufacturing and biomarker discovery.

A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.

When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.

Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that most complaints are dismissed with no action taken, but some complaints don’t go away because doctors mishandle them.

The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
 

1. Not responding to the complaint

The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.

You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”

If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
 

2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint

“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”

According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”

“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”

“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.

Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
 

3. Thinking the board is on your side

You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.

As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.

Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
 

4. Not being honest or forthcoming

“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.

As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.

Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”

Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
 

5. Providing too much information

You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.

“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.

Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
 

6. Trying to contact the complainant

Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”

Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.

The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
 

7. Simply signing a consent agreement

A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.

“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
 

8. Not hiring an attorney

Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”

Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”

Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.

Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
 

9. Not requesting a hearing

When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”

In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.

A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.

Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
 

10. Getting upset with board officials

A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.

In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.

When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.

Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”

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

A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.

When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.

Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that most complaints are dismissed with no action taken, but some complaints don’t go away because doctors mishandle them.

The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
 

1. Not responding to the complaint

The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.

You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”

If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
 

2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint

“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”

According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”

“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”

“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.

Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
 

3. Thinking the board is on your side

You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.

As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.

Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
 

4. Not being honest or forthcoming

“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.

As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.

Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”

Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
 

5. Providing too much information

You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.

“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.

Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
 

6. Trying to contact the complainant

Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”

Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.

The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
 

7. Simply signing a consent agreement

A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.

“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
 

8. Not hiring an attorney

Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”

Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”

Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.

Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
 

9. Not requesting a hearing

When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”

In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.

A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.

Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
 

10. Getting upset with board officials

A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.

In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.

When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.

Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”

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

A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.

When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.

Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that most complaints are dismissed with no action taken, but some complaints don’t go away because doctors mishandle them.

The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
 

1. Not responding to the complaint

The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.

You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”

If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
 

2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint

“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”

According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”

“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”

“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.

Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
 

3. Thinking the board is on your side

You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.

As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.

Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
 

4. Not being honest or forthcoming

“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.

As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.

Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”

Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
 

5. Providing too much information

You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.

“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.

Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
 

6. Trying to contact the complainant

Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”

Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.

The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
 

7. Simply signing a consent agreement

A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.

“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
 

8. Not hiring an attorney

Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”

Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”

Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.

Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
 

9. Not requesting a hearing

When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”

In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.

A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.

Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
 

10. Getting upset with board officials

A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.

In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.

When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.

Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”

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