MDedge Pediatrics

Americans can now have free COVID-19 rapid tests delivered directly to their homes.

The Biden administration’s new no-cost, at-home testing program launched Jan. 18, a day ahead of schedule.

The administration said 500 million tests are available to be delivered to homes across the country. This accounts for half of the president’s recent pledge to purchase 1 billion free at-home COVID-19 tests to distribute to the American public.

On a Jan. 14 call with reporters, senior White House officials offered some details about the new program.

Here’s what we know so far.

How do I order my free tests?

Americans can visit COVIDtests.gov to order their rapid at-home tests. You can also order directly from the U.S. Postal Service website. After you order, you’ll receive a confirmation email that promises to send tracking information once your order ships.

What information do I need to order the tests?

You only need your name and home mailing address.

There is also an option to provide your email address to get updates on the status of your order.

What if someone needs help ordering the tests?

There will be a free call-in line for people needing more help, including those having trouble accessing the internet, according to White House officials.

What tests will be available?

There are nine at-home tests available through FDA emergency use authorization. According to the Frequently Asked Questions section of COVIDtests.gov, "You will not be able to choose the  brand  you order as part of this program.”

How long will it take to get the tests once I order them?

Tests are expected to ship 7 to 12 days after you order them.

But White House officials say that the time frame will likely shorten as the program gains steam.

How many can I order?

There’s a limit of four tests per residential mailing address.

For larger families, White House officials suggest trying other free testing options, like visiting COVID-19 testing sites or your local health center.

Is this a one-time opportunity?

The White House doesn’t say, but officials did mention that if you run out of your four free tests, there are many other ways to access free at-home tests, such as COVID-19 testing sites, pharmacies, and community health centers.

The free tests available through COVIDtests.gov are in addition to an estimated 375 million at-home rapid tests on the market in the U.S. this month.

When should people use a rapid at-home test?

The CDC and experts with other public health groups agree that Americans should consider using at-home rapid tests in the following situations:

• If they begin to have symptoms consistent with COVID-19;
• At least 5 days after close contact with someone who has COVID;
• If someone is indoors with a group of people who are at risk of severe disease or are unvaccinated.

Are at-home rapid tests accurate?

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other federal officials confirmed through studies that all tests distributed through this program can detect the Omicron variant. These agencies also confirmed that their performance is consistent with the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

Is the website designed to handle high demand?

After the original website to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act crashed repeatedly at launch, the government says it has prepared for high demand for ordering at-home rapid tests.

The U.S. Digital Service (USDS), an organization founded after Healthcare.gov, has partnered with the Postal Service to plan for the launch.

The Postal Service has expanded its staffing, similar to what’s done during the holidays.

All orders in the continental United States will be shipped through first-class mail, with shipments to Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. territories, and military and overseas addresses sent through priority mail.

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

Americans can now have free COVID-19 rapid tests delivered directly to their homes.

The Biden administration’s new no-cost, at-home testing program launched Jan. 18, a day ahead of schedule.

The administration said 500 million tests are available to be delivered to homes across the country. This accounts for half of the president’s recent pledge to purchase 1 billion free at-home COVID-19 tests to distribute to the American public.

On a Jan. 14 call with reporters, senior White House officials offered some details about the new program.

Here’s what we know so far.

How do I order my free tests?

Americans can visit COVIDtests.gov to order their rapid at-home tests. You can also order directly from the U.S. Postal Service website. After you order, you’ll receive a confirmation email that promises to send tracking information once your order ships.

What information do I need to order the tests?

You only need your name and home mailing address.

There is also an option to provide your email address to get updates on the status of your order.

What if someone needs help ordering the tests?

There will be a free call-in line for people needing more help, including those having trouble accessing the internet, according to White House officials.

What tests will be available?

There are nine at-home tests available through FDA emergency use authorization. According to the Frequently Asked Questions section of COVIDtests.gov, "You will not be able to choose the  brand  you order as part of this program.”

How long will it take to get the tests once I order them?

Tests are expected to ship 7 to 12 days after you order them.

But White House officials say that the time frame will likely shorten as the program gains steam.

How many can I order?

There’s a limit of four tests per residential mailing address.

For larger families, White House officials suggest trying other free testing options, like visiting COVID-19 testing sites or your local health center.

Is this a one-time opportunity?

The White House doesn’t say, but officials did mention that if you run out of your four free tests, there are many other ways to access free at-home tests, such as COVID-19 testing sites, pharmacies, and community health centers.

The free tests available through COVIDtests.gov are in addition to an estimated 375 million at-home rapid tests on the market in the U.S. this month.

When should people use a rapid at-home test?

The CDC and experts with other public health groups agree that Americans should consider using at-home rapid tests in the following situations:

• If they begin to have symptoms consistent with COVID-19;
• At least 5 days after close contact with someone who has COVID;
• If someone is indoors with a group of people who are at risk of severe disease or are unvaccinated.

Are at-home rapid tests accurate?

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other federal officials confirmed through studies that all tests distributed through this program can detect the Omicron variant. These agencies also confirmed that their performance is consistent with the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

Is the website designed to handle high demand?

After the original website to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act crashed repeatedly at launch, the government says it has prepared for high demand for ordering at-home rapid tests.

The U.S. Digital Service (USDS), an organization founded after Healthcare.gov, has partnered with the Postal Service to plan for the launch.

The Postal Service has expanded its staffing, similar to what’s done during the holidays.

All orders in the continental United States will be shipped through first-class mail, with shipments to Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. territories, and military and overseas addresses sent through priority mail.

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

Americans can now have free COVID-19 rapid tests delivered directly to their homes.

The Biden administration’s new no-cost, at-home testing program launched Jan. 18, a day ahead of schedule.

The administration said 500 million tests are available to be delivered to homes across the country. This accounts for half of the president’s recent pledge to purchase 1 billion free at-home COVID-19 tests to distribute to the American public.

On a Jan. 14 call with reporters, senior White House officials offered some details about the new program.

Here’s what we know so far.

How do I order my free tests?

Americans can visit COVIDtests.gov to order their rapid at-home tests. You can also order directly from the U.S. Postal Service website. After you order, you’ll receive a confirmation email that promises to send tracking information once your order ships.

What information do I need to order the tests?

You only need your name and home mailing address.

There is also an option to provide your email address to get updates on the status of your order.

What if someone needs help ordering the tests?

There will be a free call-in line for people needing more help, including those having trouble accessing the internet, according to White House officials.

What tests will be available?

There are nine at-home tests available through FDA emergency use authorization. According to the Frequently Asked Questions section of COVIDtests.gov, "You will not be able to choose the  brand  you order as part of this program.”

How long will it take to get the tests once I order them?

Tests are expected to ship 7 to 12 days after you order them.

But White House officials say that the time frame will likely shorten as the program gains steam.

How many can I order?

There’s a limit of four tests per residential mailing address.

For larger families, White House officials suggest trying other free testing options, like visiting COVID-19 testing sites or your local health center.

Is this a one-time opportunity?

The White House doesn’t say, but officials did mention that if you run out of your four free tests, there are many other ways to access free at-home tests, such as COVID-19 testing sites, pharmacies, and community health centers.

The free tests available through COVIDtests.gov are in addition to an estimated 375 million at-home rapid tests on the market in the U.S. this month.

When should people use a rapid at-home test?

The CDC and experts with other public health groups agree that Americans should consider using at-home rapid tests in the following situations:

• If they begin to have symptoms consistent with COVID-19;
• At least 5 days after close contact with someone who has COVID;
• If someone is indoors with a group of people who are at risk of severe disease or are unvaccinated.

Are at-home rapid tests accurate?

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other federal officials confirmed through studies that all tests distributed through this program can detect the Omicron variant. These agencies also confirmed that their performance is consistent with the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

Is the website designed to handle high demand?

After the original website to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act crashed repeatedly at launch, the government says it has prepared for high demand for ordering at-home rapid tests.

The U.S. Digital Service (USDS), an organization founded after Healthcare.gov, has partnered with the Postal Service to plan for the launch.

The Postal Service has expanded its staffing, similar to what’s done during the holidays.

All orders in the continental United States will be shipped through first-class mail, with shipments to Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. territories, and military and overseas addresses sent through priority mail.

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

Antibiotics were administered to newborns at low risk for early-onset sepsis as frequently as to newborns with EOS risk factors, based on data from approximately 7,500 infants.

EOS remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, and predicting which newborns are at risk remains a challenge for neonatal care that often drives high rates of antibiotic use, Dustin D. Flannery, DO, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and colleagues wrote.

Antibiotic exposures are associated with short- and long-term adverse effects in both preterm and term infants, which highlights the need for improved risk assessment in this population, the researchers said.

“A robust estimate of EOS risk in relation to delivery characteristics among infants of all gestational ages at birth could significantly contribute to newborn clinical management by identifying newborns unlikely to benefit from empirical antibiotic therapy,” they emphasized.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers identified 7,540 infants born between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2014, at two high-risk perinatal units in Philadelphia. Gestational age ranged from 22 to 43 weeks. Criteria for low risk of EOS were determined via an algorithm that included cesarean delivery (with or without labor or membrane rupture), and no antepartum concerns for intra-amniotic infection or nonreassuring fetal status.

A total of 6,428 infants did not meet the low-risk criteria; another 1,121 infants met the low-risk criteria. The primary outcome of EOS was defined as growth of a pathogen in at least 1 blood and/or cerebrospinal fluid culture obtained at 72 hours or less after birth. Overall, 41 infants who did not meet the low-risk criteria developed EOS; none of the infants who met the low-risk criteria developed EOS. Secondary outcomes included initiation of empirical antibiotics at 72 hours or less after birth and the duration of antibiotic use.

Although fewer low-risk infants received antibiotics, compared with infants with EOS (80.4% vs. 91.0%, P < .001), the duration of antibiotic use was not significantly different between the groups, with an adjusted difference of 0.6 hours.

Among infants who did not meet low-risk criteria, 157 were started on antibiotics for each case of EOS, the researchers noted in their discussion of the findings. “Because no cases of EOS were identified in the low-risk group, this proportion could not be calculated but suggests that antibiotic exposure in this group was disproportionately higher for incidence of EOS.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible lack of generalizability to other centers and the use of data from a period before more refined EOS strategies, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to assess the effect of lab results on antibiotic use, a lack of data on the exact indication for delivery, and potential misclassification bias.

Risk assessment tools should not be used alone, but should be used to inform clinical decision-making, the researchers emphasized. However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of moderately preterm infants, who are rarely studied, and the clinical utility of the risk algorithm used in the study. “The implications of our study include potential adjustments to sepsis risk assessment in term infants, and confirmation and enhancement of previous studies that identify a subset of lower-risk preterm infants,” who may be spared empirical or prolonged antibiotic exposure, they concluded.
 

Data inform intelligent antibiotic use

“Early-onset sepsis is predominantly caused by exposure of the fetus or neonate to ascending maternal colonization or infection by gastrointestinal or genitourinary bacteria,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Scenarios where there is limited neonatal exposure to these organisms would decrease the risk of development of EOS, therefore it is not surprising that delivery characteristics of low-risk deliveries as defined by investigators – the absence of labor, absence of intra-amniotic infection, rupture of membranes at time of delivery, and cesarean delivery – would have resulted in decreased likelihood of EOS.”

Inappropriate antibiotic use contributes to the development of resistant and more virulent strains of bacteria. A growing body of literature also suggests that early antibiotic usage in newborns may affect the neonatal gut microbiome, which is important for development of the neonatal immune system. Early alterations of the microbiome may have long-term implications,” Dr. Krishna said.

“Understanding the delivery characteristics that increase the risk of EOS are crucial to optimizing the use of antibiotics and thereby minimize potential harm to newborns,” she said. “Studies such as the current study are needed develop EOS prediction tools to improve antibiotic utilization.” More research is needed not only to adequately predict EOS, but to explore how antibiotics affect the neonatal microbiome, and how clinicians can circumvent potential adverse implications with antibiotic use to improve long-term health, Dr. Krishna concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Krishna had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Antibiotics were administered to newborns at low risk for early-onset sepsis as frequently as to newborns with EOS risk factors, based on data from approximately 7,500 infants.

EOS remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, and predicting which newborns are at risk remains a challenge for neonatal care that often drives high rates of antibiotic use, Dustin D. Flannery, DO, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and colleagues wrote.

Antibiotic exposures are associated with short- and long-term adverse effects in both preterm and term infants, which highlights the need for improved risk assessment in this population, the researchers said.

“A robust estimate of EOS risk in relation to delivery characteristics among infants of all gestational ages at birth could significantly contribute to newborn clinical management by identifying newborns unlikely to benefit from empirical antibiotic therapy,” they emphasized.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers identified 7,540 infants born between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2014, at two high-risk perinatal units in Philadelphia. Gestational age ranged from 22 to 43 weeks. Criteria for low risk of EOS were determined via an algorithm that included cesarean delivery (with or without labor or membrane rupture), and no antepartum concerns for intra-amniotic infection or nonreassuring fetal status.

A total of 6,428 infants did not meet the low-risk criteria; another 1,121 infants met the low-risk criteria. The primary outcome of EOS was defined as growth of a pathogen in at least 1 blood and/or cerebrospinal fluid culture obtained at 72 hours or less after birth. Overall, 41 infants who did not meet the low-risk criteria developed EOS; none of the infants who met the low-risk criteria developed EOS. Secondary outcomes included initiation of empirical antibiotics at 72 hours or less after birth and the duration of antibiotic use.

Although fewer low-risk infants received antibiotics, compared with infants with EOS (80.4% vs. 91.0%, P < .001), the duration of antibiotic use was not significantly different between the groups, with an adjusted difference of 0.6 hours.

Among infants who did not meet low-risk criteria, 157 were started on antibiotics for each case of EOS, the researchers noted in their discussion of the findings. “Because no cases of EOS were identified in the low-risk group, this proportion could not be calculated but suggests that antibiotic exposure in this group was disproportionately higher for incidence of EOS.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible lack of generalizability to other centers and the use of data from a period before more refined EOS strategies, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to assess the effect of lab results on antibiotic use, a lack of data on the exact indication for delivery, and potential misclassification bias.

Risk assessment tools should not be used alone, but should be used to inform clinical decision-making, the researchers emphasized. However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of moderately preterm infants, who are rarely studied, and the clinical utility of the risk algorithm used in the study. “The implications of our study include potential adjustments to sepsis risk assessment in term infants, and confirmation and enhancement of previous studies that identify a subset of lower-risk preterm infants,” who may be spared empirical or prolonged antibiotic exposure, they concluded.
 

Data inform intelligent antibiotic use

“Early-onset sepsis is predominantly caused by exposure of the fetus or neonate to ascending maternal colonization or infection by gastrointestinal or genitourinary bacteria,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Scenarios where there is limited neonatal exposure to these organisms would decrease the risk of development of EOS, therefore it is not surprising that delivery characteristics of low-risk deliveries as defined by investigators – the absence of labor, absence of intra-amniotic infection, rupture of membranes at time of delivery, and cesarean delivery – would have resulted in decreased likelihood of EOS.”

Inappropriate antibiotic use contributes to the development of resistant and more virulent strains of bacteria. A growing body of literature also suggests that early antibiotic usage in newborns may affect the neonatal gut microbiome, which is important for development of the neonatal immune system. Early alterations of the microbiome may have long-term implications,” Dr. Krishna said.

“Understanding the delivery characteristics that increase the risk of EOS are crucial to optimizing the use of antibiotics and thereby minimize potential harm to newborns,” she said. “Studies such as the current study are needed develop EOS prediction tools to improve antibiotic utilization.” More research is needed not only to adequately predict EOS, but to explore how antibiotics affect the neonatal microbiome, and how clinicians can circumvent potential adverse implications with antibiotic use to improve long-term health, Dr. Krishna concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Krishna had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Antibiotics were administered to newborns at low risk for early-onset sepsis as frequently as to newborns with EOS risk factors, based on data from approximately 7,500 infants.

EOS remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, and predicting which newborns are at risk remains a challenge for neonatal care that often drives high rates of antibiotic use, Dustin D. Flannery, DO, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and colleagues wrote.

Antibiotic exposures are associated with short- and long-term adverse effects in both preterm and term infants, which highlights the need for improved risk assessment in this population, the researchers said.

“A robust estimate of EOS risk in relation to delivery characteristics among infants of all gestational ages at birth could significantly contribute to newborn clinical management by identifying newborns unlikely to benefit from empirical antibiotic therapy,” they emphasized.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers identified 7,540 infants born between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2014, at two high-risk perinatal units in Philadelphia. Gestational age ranged from 22 to 43 weeks. Criteria for low risk of EOS were determined via an algorithm that included cesarean delivery (with or without labor or membrane rupture), and no antepartum concerns for intra-amniotic infection or nonreassuring fetal status.

A total of 6,428 infants did not meet the low-risk criteria; another 1,121 infants met the low-risk criteria. The primary outcome of EOS was defined as growth of a pathogen in at least 1 blood and/or cerebrospinal fluid culture obtained at 72 hours or less after birth. Overall, 41 infants who did not meet the low-risk criteria developed EOS; none of the infants who met the low-risk criteria developed EOS. Secondary outcomes included initiation of empirical antibiotics at 72 hours or less after birth and the duration of antibiotic use.

Although fewer low-risk infants received antibiotics, compared with infants with EOS (80.4% vs. 91.0%, P < .001), the duration of antibiotic use was not significantly different between the groups, with an adjusted difference of 0.6 hours.

Among infants who did not meet low-risk criteria, 157 were started on antibiotics for each case of EOS, the researchers noted in their discussion of the findings. “Because no cases of EOS were identified in the low-risk group, this proportion could not be calculated but suggests that antibiotic exposure in this group was disproportionately higher for incidence of EOS.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible lack of generalizability to other centers and the use of data from a period before more refined EOS strategies, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to assess the effect of lab results on antibiotic use, a lack of data on the exact indication for delivery, and potential misclassification bias.

Risk assessment tools should not be used alone, but should be used to inform clinical decision-making, the researchers emphasized. However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of moderately preterm infants, who are rarely studied, and the clinical utility of the risk algorithm used in the study. “The implications of our study include potential adjustments to sepsis risk assessment in term infants, and confirmation and enhancement of previous studies that identify a subset of lower-risk preterm infants,” who may be spared empirical or prolonged antibiotic exposure, they concluded.
 

Data inform intelligent antibiotic use

“Early-onset sepsis is predominantly caused by exposure of the fetus or neonate to ascending maternal colonization or infection by gastrointestinal or genitourinary bacteria,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Scenarios where there is limited neonatal exposure to these organisms would decrease the risk of development of EOS, therefore it is not surprising that delivery characteristics of low-risk deliveries as defined by investigators – the absence of labor, absence of intra-amniotic infection, rupture of membranes at time of delivery, and cesarean delivery – would have resulted in decreased likelihood of EOS.”

Inappropriate antibiotic use contributes to the development of resistant and more virulent strains of bacteria. A growing body of literature also suggests that early antibiotic usage in newborns may affect the neonatal gut microbiome, which is important for development of the neonatal immune system. Early alterations of the microbiome may have long-term implications,” Dr. Krishna said.

“Understanding the delivery characteristics that increase the risk of EOS are crucial to optimizing the use of antibiotics and thereby minimize potential harm to newborns,” she said. “Studies such as the current study are needed develop EOS prediction tools to improve antibiotic utilization.” More research is needed not only to adequately predict EOS, but to explore how antibiotics affect the neonatal microbiome, and how clinicians can circumvent potential adverse implications with antibiotic use to improve long-term health, Dr. Krishna concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Krishna had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Pregnant women’s thyroid hormone trajectories (levels in the first, second, and third trimester) may predict whether their male offspring are aggressive or withdrawn at age 4.

Certain maternal thyroid hormone trajectories were associated with problem behaviors in preschool boys in a study of close to 2,000 mother-child pairs in China.

The researchers identified low, moderate, and high thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and free thyroxine (FT4) trajectories. 

shironosov/Getty Images

‘Study supports monitoring thyroid function in pregnancy’

“Our findings highlight the significance of close monitoring and management of maternal thyroid function during pregnancy,” senior author Kun Huang, PhD, said in a press release from the Endocrine Society.

“This research presents a new perspective in early intervention of children’s emotional and behavioral problems,” added Dr. Huang, from Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.

The results add to a growing body of literature about a controversial link between maternal thyroid hormones in pregnancy, when the fetal brain is developing, and subsequent behavior in preschool children, Caroline T. Nguyen, MD, who was not involved with this research, commented in an email.

“Some studies show an association between thyroid levels and behavioral outcomes, others not,” added Dr. Nguyen, assistant professor of clinical medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. And “some studies have found sex-specific associations with maternal thyroid levels and neurocognitive/behavioral outcomes, others have not.”

Women considering pregnancy should be evaluated for possible thyroid disease, she continued. Currently, no universal screening mandates exist for thyroid disease in pregnancy, but the 2017 American Thyroid Association guidelines do recommend screening women at risk for thyroid dysfunction.

“I think screening for thyroid peroxidase antibody (TPOAb) positivity is helpful in women desiring pregnancy,” Dr. Nguyen continued, “because we know that patients with TPOAb positivity are at increased risk for miscarriage and have a blunted response to the increased demands of pregnancy for thyroid hormone production.”

TPOAb positivity is also associated with the increased risk of postpartum and long-term thyroid dysfunction.

This current study, Dr. Nguyen summarized, “adds to a growing body of research of the relationship of thyroid hormone levels and neurocognitive outcomes [in offspring] and supports the monitoring of thyroid disease in pregnancy.”  

“However, we do not have sufficient data to demonstrate the benefits of intervention with levothyroxine treatment,” she noted. 

Nevertheless, the lack of positive data does not suggest there is no theoretical benefit of intervention, she said, as such studies are very challenging to do. 

“Physicians can help reduce stress and anxiety in patients desiring pregnancy by [recommending] preconception counseling, screening patients at risk for thyroid disease, and optimizing thyroid hormone levels before and during pregnancy,” according to Dr. Nguyen.
 

Maternal TSH and FT4 trajectories and preschoolers’ behaviors

Previous studies have reported that during pregnancy, maternal subclinical hypothyroidism (elevated TSH with normal FT4) as well as isolated hypothyroxinemia (decreased FT4 with normal TSH) are associated with adverse maternal and child outcomes, including preterm delivery and low birth weight.

However, most studies have not determined maternal thyroid hormone levels in different trimesters.

Researchers recruited pregnant women going for their first antenatal checkup at the Ma’anshan Maternal and Child Health Hospital in China from May 2013 to September 2014 and identified 1,860 mother-child pairs.

They determined maternal thyroid hormone levels from blood samples taken during the first, second, and third trimester: on average, gestational week 10, 25, and 34, respectively.

The researchers found that TSH levels increased somewhat from trimester 1 to trimester 2 and then decreased slightly in trimester 3. Most women (68%) had a low TSH trajectory, 28% had a moderate TSH trajectory, and 4% had a high TSH trajectory.

FT4 levels dropped sharply from trimester 1 to trimester 2 and then increased somewhat in trimester 3. About half of the women (52%) had a moderate FT4 trajectory, 33% had a low FT4 trajectory, and 15% had a high FT4 trajectory.

Most women (96.5%) had a low and stable TPOAb level, and the rest (3.5%) had high and decreasing TPOAb levels.  

When the children in the study were 4 years old, their main caregiver (parent or grandparent) completed the 100-question Achenbach Child Behavior checklist to identify whether the child often, sometimes, or never displayed three internalizing problem behaviors (emotionally reactive, anxious/depressed, or withdrawn) and/or two externalizing problem behaviors (attention problems or aggressive behavior).
 

Study limitations, more research needed

It is not clear why the associations between maternal hormones and offspring behavior were only seen in boys. Perhaps male fetuses are more sensitive than female fetuses to changing maternal thyroid hormone levels in pregnancy, the researchers speculate.

They acknowledge that study limitations include there were few children with aggressive behavior, so the confidence interval for the association of the moderate TSH trajectory with aggressive behavior was very wide.

In addition, evaluation of children’s behavior by caregivers was subjective. Also, the researchers did not have information about iodine levels, and low iodine levels can impair child brain development.

And there may have been residual confounders that researchers did not account for, such as differences in family upbringing, parental marital status, and the mother’s exposure to endocrine disruptors.

Therefore, further research is needed.

The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the University Synergy Innovation Program of Anhui Province, the Sci-Tech Basic Resources Research Program of China, the National Key Research and Development Program, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the Research Fund of Anhui Institute of Translational Medicine. The researchers and Dr. Nguyen have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women’s thyroid hormone trajectories (levels in the first, second, and third trimester) may predict whether their male offspring are aggressive or withdrawn at age 4.

Certain maternal thyroid hormone trajectories were associated with problem behaviors in preschool boys in a study of close to 2,000 mother-child pairs in China.

The researchers identified low, moderate, and high thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and free thyroxine (FT4) trajectories. 

shironosov/Getty Images

‘Study supports monitoring thyroid function in pregnancy’

“Our findings highlight the significance of close monitoring and management of maternal thyroid function during pregnancy,” senior author Kun Huang, PhD, said in a press release from the Endocrine Society.

“This research presents a new perspective in early intervention of children’s emotional and behavioral problems,” added Dr. Huang, from Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.

The results add to a growing body of literature about a controversial link between maternal thyroid hormones in pregnancy, when the fetal brain is developing, and subsequent behavior in preschool children, Caroline T. Nguyen, MD, who was not involved with this research, commented in an email.

“Some studies show an association between thyroid levels and behavioral outcomes, others not,” added Dr. Nguyen, assistant professor of clinical medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. And “some studies have found sex-specific associations with maternal thyroid levels and neurocognitive/behavioral outcomes, others have not.”

Women considering pregnancy should be evaluated for possible thyroid disease, she continued. Currently, no universal screening mandates exist for thyroid disease in pregnancy, but the 2017 American Thyroid Association guidelines do recommend screening women at risk for thyroid dysfunction.

“I think screening for thyroid peroxidase antibody (TPOAb) positivity is helpful in women desiring pregnancy,” Dr. Nguyen continued, “because we know that patients with TPOAb positivity are at increased risk for miscarriage and have a blunted response to the increased demands of pregnancy for thyroid hormone production.”

TPOAb positivity is also associated with the increased risk of postpartum and long-term thyroid dysfunction.

This current study, Dr. Nguyen summarized, “adds to a growing body of research of the relationship of thyroid hormone levels and neurocognitive outcomes [in offspring] and supports the monitoring of thyroid disease in pregnancy.”  

“However, we do not have sufficient data to demonstrate the benefits of intervention with levothyroxine treatment,” she noted. 

Nevertheless, the lack of positive data does not suggest there is no theoretical benefit of intervention, she said, as such studies are very challenging to do. 

“Physicians can help reduce stress and anxiety in patients desiring pregnancy by [recommending] preconception counseling, screening patients at risk for thyroid disease, and optimizing thyroid hormone levels before and during pregnancy,” according to Dr. Nguyen.
 

Maternal TSH and FT4 trajectories and preschoolers’ behaviors

Previous studies have reported that during pregnancy, maternal subclinical hypothyroidism (elevated TSH with normal FT4) as well as isolated hypothyroxinemia (decreased FT4 with normal TSH) are associated with adverse maternal and child outcomes, including preterm delivery and low birth weight.

However, most studies have not determined maternal thyroid hormone levels in different trimesters.

Researchers recruited pregnant women going for their first antenatal checkup at the Ma’anshan Maternal and Child Health Hospital in China from May 2013 to September 2014 and identified 1,860 mother-child pairs.

They determined maternal thyroid hormone levels from blood samples taken during the first, second, and third trimester: on average, gestational week 10, 25, and 34, respectively.

The researchers found that TSH levels increased somewhat from trimester 1 to trimester 2 and then decreased slightly in trimester 3. Most women (68%) had a low TSH trajectory, 28% had a moderate TSH trajectory, and 4% had a high TSH trajectory.

FT4 levels dropped sharply from trimester 1 to trimester 2 and then increased somewhat in trimester 3. About half of the women (52%) had a moderate FT4 trajectory, 33% had a low FT4 trajectory, and 15% had a high FT4 trajectory.

Most women (96.5%) had a low and stable TPOAb level, and the rest (3.5%) had high and decreasing TPOAb levels.  

When the children in the study were 4 years old, their main caregiver (parent or grandparent) completed the 100-question Achenbach Child Behavior checklist to identify whether the child often, sometimes, or never displayed three internalizing problem behaviors (emotionally reactive, anxious/depressed, or withdrawn) and/or two externalizing problem behaviors (attention problems or aggressive behavior).
 

Study limitations, more research needed

It is not clear why the associations between maternal hormones and offspring behavior were only seen in boys. Perhaps male fetuses are more sensitive than female fetuses to changing maternal thyroid hormone levels in pregnancy, the researchers speculate.

They acknowledge that study limitations include there were few children with aggressive behavior, so the confidence interval for the association of the moderate TSH trajectory with aggressive behavior was very wide.

In addition, evaluation of children’s behavior by caregivers was subjective. Also, the researchers did not have information about iodine levels, and low iodine levels can impair child brain development.

And there may have been residual confounders that researchers did not account for, such as differences in family upbringing, parental marital status, and the mother’s exposure to endocrine disruptors.

Therefore, further research is needed.

The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the University Synergy Innovation Program of Anhui Province, the Sci-Tech Basic Resources Research Program of China, the National Key Research and Development Program, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the Research Fund of Anhui Institute of Translational Medicine. The researchers and Dr. Nguyen have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women’s thyroid hormone trajectories (levels in the first, second, and third trimester) may predict whether their male offspring are aggressive or withdrawn at age 4.

Certain maternal thyroid hormone trajectories were associated with problem behaviors in preschool boys in a study of close to 2,000 mother-child pairs in China.

The researchers identified low, moderate, and high thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and free thyroxine (FT4) trajectories. 

shironosov/Getty Images

‘Study supports monitoring thyroid function in pregnancy’

“Our findings highlight the significance of close monitoring and management of maternal thyroid function during pregnancy,” senior author Kun Huang, PhD, said in a press release from the Endocrine Society.

“This research presents a new perspective in early intervention of children’s emotional and behavioral problems,” added Dr. Huang, from Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.

The results add to a growing body of literature about a controversial link between maternal thyroid hormones in pregnancy, when the fetal brain is developing, and subsequent behavior in preschool children, Caroline T. Nguyen, MD, who was not involved with this research, commented in an email.

“Some studies show an association between thyroid levels and behavioral outcomes, others not,” added Dr. Nguyen, assistant professor of clinical medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. And “some studies have found sex-specific associations with maternal thyroid levels and neurocognitive/behavioral outcomes, others have not.”

Women considering pregnancy should be evaluated for possible thyroid disease, she continued. Currently, no universal screening mandates exist for thyroid disease in pregnancy, but the 2017 American Thyroid Association guidelines do recommend screening women at risk for thyroid dysfunction.

“I think screening for thyroid peroxidase antibody (TPOAb) positivity is helpful in women desiring pregnancy,” Dr. Nguyen continued, “because we know that patients with TPOAb positivity are at increased risk for miscarriage and have a blunted response to the increased demands of pregnancy for thyroid hormone production.”

TPOAb positivity is also associated with the increased risk of postpartum and long-term thyroid dysfunction.

This current study, Dr. Nguyen summarized, “adds to a growing body of research of the relationship of thyroid hormone levels and neurocognitive outcomes [in offspring] and supports the monitoring of thyroid disease in pregnancy.”  

“However, we do not have sufficient data to demonstrate the benefits of intervention with levothyroxine treatment,” she noted. 

Nevertheless, the lack of positive data does not suggest there is no theoretical benefit of intervention, she said, as such studies are very challenging to do. 

“Physicians can help reduce stress and anxiety in patients desiring pregnancy by [recommending] preconception counseling, screening patients at risk for thyroid disease, and optimizing thyroid hormone levels before and during pregnancy,” according to Dr. Nguyen.
 

Maternal TSH and FT4 trajectories and preschoolers’ behaviors

Previous studies have reported that during pregnancy, maternal subclinical hypothyroidism (elevated TSH with normal FT4) as well as isolated hypothyroxinemia (decreased FT4 with normal TSH) are associated with adverse maternal and child outcomes, including preterm delivery and low birth weight.

However, most studies have not determined maternal thyroid hormone levels in different trimesters.

Researchers recruited pregnant women going for their first antenatal checkup at the Ma’anshan Maternal and Child Health Hospital in China from May 2013 to September 2014 and identified 1,860 mother-child pairs.

They determined maternal thyroid hormone levels from blood samples taken during the first, second, and third trimester: on average, gestational week 10, 25, and 34, respectively.

The researchers found that TSH levels increased somewhat from trimester 1 to trimester 2 and then decreased slightly in trimester 3. Most women (68%) had a low TSH trajectory, 28% had a moderate TSH trajectory, and 4% had a high TSH trajectory.

FT4 levels dropped sharply from trimester 1 to trimester 2 and then increased somewhat in trimester 3. About half of the women (52%) had a moderate FT4 trajectory, 33% had a low FT4 trajectory, and 15% had a high FT4 trajectory.

Most women (96.5%) had a low and stable TPOAb level, and the rest (3.5%) had high and decreasing TPOAb levels.  

When the children in the study were 4 years old, their main caregiver (parent or grandparent) completed the 100-question Achenbach Child Behavior checklist to identify whether the child often, sometimes, or never displayed three internalizing problem behaviors (emotionally reactive, anxious/depressed, or withdrawn) and/or two externalizing problem behaviors (attention problems or aggressive behavior).
 

Study limitations, more research needed

It is not clear why the associations between maternal hormones and offspring behavior were only seen in boys. Perhaps male fetuses are more sensitive than female fetuses to changing maternal thyroid hormone levels in pregnancy, the researchers speculate.

They acknowledge that study limitations include there were few children with aggressive behavior, so the confidence interval for the association of the moderate TSH trajectory with aggressive behavior was very wide.

In addition, evaluation of children’s behavior by caregivers was subjective. Also, the researchers did not have information about iodine levels, and low iodine levels can impair child brain development.

And there may have been residual confounders that researchers did not account for, such as differences in family upbringing, parental marital status, and the mother’s exposure to endocrine disruptors.

Therefore, further research is needed.

The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the University Synergy Innovation Program of Anhui Province, the Sci-Tech Basic Resources Research Program of China, the National Key Research and Development Program, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the Research Fund of Anhui Institute of Translational Medicine. The researchers and Dr. Nguyen have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

When it comes to antidepressant prescribing, less may be more, new research suggests.

A new review suggests antidepressants are overprescribed and that the efficacy of these agents is questionable, leading researchers to recommend that, when physicians prescribe these medications, it should be for shorter periods.

“Antidepressants have never been shown to have a clinically significant difference from placebo in the treatment of depression,” study co\investigator Mark Horowitz, GDPsych, PhD, division of psychiatry, University College London, said in an interview.

HconQ/ThinkStock

He added antidepressants “exert profound adverse effects on the body and brain” and can be difficult to stop because of physical dependence that occurs when the brain adapts to them.

“The best way to take people off these drugs is to do so gradually enough that the unpleasant effects are minimized and in a way that means the reductions in dose get smaller and smaller as the total dose gets lower,” Dr. Horowitz said.

However, at least one expert urged caution in interpreting the review’s findings.

“The reality is that millions of people do benefit from these medications, and this review minimizes those benefits,” Philip Muskin, MD, chief of consultation-liaison for psychiatry and professor of psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital, said when approached for comment.

The findings were published online Dec. 20, 2021, in the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin.
 

Personal experience

Prescribing of newer-generation antidepressants, such as SSRIs and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), is increasing, with an estimated one in six adults in the United Kingdom receiving at least one prescription in 2019-2020, the investigators noted.

Dr. Horowitz noted a personal motivation for conducting the review. “As well as being an academic psychiatrist, I’m also a patient who has been prescribed antidepressants since age 21, when my mood was poor, due to life circumstances.”

The antidepressant “didn’t have particularly helpful effects,” but Dr. Horowitz continued taking it for 18 years. “I was told it was helpful and internalized that message. I came to understand that much of the information around antidepressants came from the drug companies that manufactured them or from academics paid by these companies.”

Dr. Horowitz is currently discontinuing his medication – a tapering process now in its third year. He said he has come to realize, in retrospect, that symptoms not initially attributed to the drug, such as fatigue, impaired concentration, and impaired memory, have improved since reducing the medication.

“That experience sensitized me to look for these symptoms in my patients and I see them; but most of my patients were told by their doctors that the cause of those problems was the depression or anxiety itself and not the drug,” he said.

Dr. Horowitz collaborated with Michael Wilcock, DTB, Pharmacy, Royal Cornwall Hospitals, NHS Trust, Truro, England, in conducting the review “to provide an independent assessment of benefits and harms of antidepressants.”

“Much of the evidence of the efficacy of antidepressants comes from randomized placebo-controlled trials,” Dr. Horowitz said. Several meta-analyses of these studies showed a difference of about two points between the agent and the placebo on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

“Although this might be statistically significant, it does not meet the threshold for a clinical significance – those aren’t the same thing,” Dr. Horowitz said. Some analyses suggest that a “minimally clinically important difference” on the HAM-D would range from 3 to 6 points.

The findings in adolescents and children are “even less convincing,” the investigators noted, citing a Cochrane review.

“This is especially concerning because the number of children and adolescents being treated with antidepressants is rapidly increasing,” Dr. Horowitz said.

Additionally, the short duration of most trials, typically 6-12 weeks, is “largely uninformative for the clinical treatment of depression.”
 

Relapse or withdrawal?

The researchers reviewed the adverse effects of long-term antidepressant use, including daytime sleepiness, dry mouth, profuse sweating, weight gain, sexual dysfunction, restlessness, and feeling “foggy or detached.”

“Antidepressants have toxic effects on the brain and cause brain damage when they artificially increase serotonin and modify brain chemistry, which is why people become sick for years after stopping,” Dr. Horowitz said. “When the drug is reduced or stopped, the brain has difficulty dealing with the sudden drop in neurotransmitters, and withdrawal symptoms result, similar to stopping caffeine, nicotine, or opioids.”

He added it is not necessarily the original condition of depression or anxiety that is recurring but rather withdrawal, which can last for months or even years after medication discontinuation.

“Unfortunately, doctors have been taught that there are minimal withdrawal symptoms, euphemized as ‘discontinuation symptoms,’ and so when patients have reported withdrawal symptoms, they have been told it is a return of their underlying condition,” Dr. Horowitz said.

“This has led to many patients being incorrectly told that they need to get back on their antidepressants,” he added.

He likened this approach to “telling people that the need to continue smoking because when they stop, they get more anxiety.” Rather, the “correct response would be that they simply need to taper off the antidepressant more carefully,” he said.
 

Helpful in the short term

Patients should be informed prior to initiation of antidepressant treatment about the risk of withdrawal effects if they stop the drug, the investigators advise. They reference the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ updated guidance, which recommends slow tapering over a period long enough to mitigate withdrawal symptoms to “tolerable levels.”

The guidance suggests that patients start with a small “test reduction.” Withdrawal symptoms should be monitored for the following 2-4 weeks, using a symptom checklist such as the Discontinuation Emergent Signs and Symptoms Scale, with subsequent reductions based on the tolerability of the process.

Gradual dose reductions and very small final doses may necessitate the use of formulations of medication other than those commonly available in tablet forms, the researchers noted. During the tapering process, patients may benefit from increased psychosocial support.

Dr. Horowitz noted that antidepressants can be helpful on a short-term basis, and likened their use to the use of a cast to stabilize a broken arm.

“It’s useful for a short period. But if you leave someone in a plastic cast permanently, their arm will shrivel and you will disable them. These drugs should be prescribed minimally, and for the shortest possible period of time,” he said.

Dr. Horowitz recommended the recent draft National Institute for Health and Care Excellence depression guidance that recommends multiple other options beyond antidepressants, including cognitive-behavioral therapy, problem solving, counseling, and exercise.
 

Lack of balance

Dr. Muskin commented that the review is helpful in guiding clinicians on how to approach tapering of antidepressants and making patients aware of discontinuation symptoms.

However, “a lot of people will read this who need treatment, but they won’t get treated because they’ll take away the message that ‘drugs don’t work,’ ” he said.

“As it is, there is already stigma and prejudice toward psychiatric illness and using medications for treatment,” said Dr. Muskin, who was not involved with the research.

The current review “isn’t balanced, in terms of the efficacy of these drugs – both for the spectrum of depressive disorders and for panic or anxiety disorder. And there is nowhere that the authors say these drugs help people,” he added.

Moreover, the investigators’ assertion that long-term use of antidepressants causes harm is incorrect, he said.

“Yes, there are ongoing side effects that impose a burden, but that’s not the same as harm. And while the side effects are sometimes burdensome, ongoing depression is also terribly burdensome,” Dr. Muskin concluded.

Dr. Horowitz, Dr. Wilcock, and Dr. Muskin have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

When it comes to antidepressant prescribing, less may be more, new research suggests.

A new review suggests antidepressants are overprescribed and that the efficacy of these agents is questionable, leading researchers to recommend that, when physicians prescribe these medications, it should be for shorter periods.

“Antidepressants have never been shown to have a clinically significant difference from placebo in the treatment of depression,” study co\investigator Mark Horowitz, GDPsych, PhD, division of psychiatry, University College London, said in an interview.

HconQ/ThinkStock

He added antidepressants “exert profound adverse effects on the body and brain” and can be difficult to stop because of physical dependence that occurs when the brain adapts to them.

“The best way to take people off these drugs is to do so gradually enough that the unpleasant effects are minimized and in a way that means the reductions in dose get smaller and smaller as the total dose gets lower,” Dr. Horowitz said.

However, at least one expert urged caution in interpreting the review’s findings.

“The reality is that millions of people do benefit from these medications, and this review minimizes those benefits,” Philip Muskin, MD, chief of consultation-liaison for psychiatry and professor of psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital, said when approached for comment.

The findings were published online Dec. 20, 2021, in the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin.
 

Personal experience

Prescribing of newer-generation antidepressants, such as SSRIs and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), is increasing, with an estimated one in six adults in the United Kingdom receiving at least one prescription in 2019-2020, the investigators noted.

Dr. Horowitz noted a personal motivation for conducting the review. “As well as being an academic psychiatrist, I’m also a patient who has been prescribed antidepressants since age 21, when my mood was poor, due to life circumstances.”

The antidepressant “didn’t have particularly helpful effects,” but Dr. Horowitz continued taking it for 18 years. “I was told it was helpful and internalized that message. I came to understand that much of the information around antidepressants came from the drug companies that manufactured them or from academics paid by these companies.”

Dr. Horowitz is currently discontinuing his medication – a tapering process now in its third year. He said he has come to realize, in retrospect, that symptoms not initially attributed to the drug, such as fatigue, impaired concentration, and impaired memory, have improved since reducing the medication.

“That experience sensitized me to look for these symptoms in my patients and I see them; but most of my patients were told by their doctors that the cause of those problems was the depression or anxiety itself and not the drug,” he said.

Dr. Horowitz collaborated with Michael Wilcock, DTB, Pharmacy, Royal Cornwall Hospitals, NHS Trust, Truro, England, in conducting the review “to provide an independent assessment of benefits and harms of antidepressants.”

“Much of the evidence of the efficacy of antidepressants comes from randomized placebo-controlled trials,” Dr. Horowitz said. Several meta-analyses of these studies showed a difference of about two points between the agent and the placebo on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

“Although this might be statistically significant, it does not meet the threshold for a clinical significance – those aren’t the same thing,” Dr. Horowitz said. Some analyses suggest that a “minimally clinically important difference” on the HAM-D would range from 3 to 6 points.

The findings in adolescents and children are “even less convincing,” the investigators noted, citing a Cochrane review.

“This is especially concerning because the number of children and adolescents being treated with antidepressants is rapidly increasing,” Dr. Horowitz said.

Additionally, the short duration of most trials, typically 6-12 weeks, is “largely uninformative for the clinical treatment of depression.”
 

Relapse or withdrawal?

The researchers reviewed the adverse effects of long-term antidepressant use, including daytime sleepiness, dry mouth, profuse sweating, weight gain, sexual dysfunction, restlessness, and feeling “foggy or detached.”

“Antidepressants have toxic effects on the brain and cause brain damage when they artificially increase serotonin and modify brain chemistry, which is why people become sick for years after stopping,” Dr. Horowitz said. “When the drug is reduced or stopped, the brain has difficulty dealing with the sudden drop in neurotransmitters, and withdrawal symptoms result, similar to stopping caffeine, nicotine, or opioids.”

He added it is not necessarily the original condition of depression or anxiety that is recurring but rather withdrawal, which can last for months or even years after medication discontinuation.

“Unfortunately, doctors have been taught that there are minimal withdrawal symptoms, euphemized as ‘discontinuation symptoms,’ and so when patients have reported withdrawal symptoms, they have been told it is a return of their underlying condition,” Dr. Horowitz said.

“This has led to many patients being incorrectly told that they need to get back on their antidepressants,” he added.

He likened this approach to “telling people that the need to continue smoking because when they stop, they get more anxiety.” Rather, the “correct response would be that they simply need to taper off the antidepressant more carefully,” he said.
 

Helpful in the short term

Patients should be informed prior to initiation of antidepressant treatment about the risk of withdrawal effects if they stop the drug, the investigators advise. They reference the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ updated guidance, which recommends slow tapering over a period long enough to mitigate withdrawal symptoms to “tolerable levels.”

The guidance suggests that patients start with a small “test reduction.” Withdrawal symptoms should be monitored for the following 2-4 weeks, using a symptom checklist such as the Discontinuation Emergent Signs and Symptoms Scale, with subsequent reductions based on the tolerability of the process.

Gradual dose reductions and very small final doses may necessitate the use of formulations of medication other than those commonly available in tablet forms, the researchers noted. During the tapering process, patients may benefit from increased psychosocial support.

Dr. Horowitz noted that antidepressants can be helpful on a short-term basis, and likened their use to the use of a cast to stabilize a broken arm.

“It’s useful for a short period. But if you leave someone in a plastic cast permanently, their arm will shrivel and you will disable them. These drugs should be prescribed minimally, and for the shortest possible period of time,” he said.

Dr. Horowitz recommended the recent draft National Institute for Health and Care Excellence depression guidance that recommends multiple other options beyond antidepressants, including cognitive-behavioral therapy, problem solving, counseling, and exercise.
 

Lack of balance

Dr. Muskin commented that the review is helpful in guiding clinicians on how to approach tapering of antidepressants and making patients aware of discontinuation symptoms.

However, “a lot of people will read this who need treatment, but they won’t get treated because they’ll take away the message that ‘drugs don’t work,’ ” he said.

“As it is, there is already stigma and prejudice toward psychiatric illness and using medications for treatment,” said Dr. Muskin, who was not involved with the research.

The current review “isn’t balanced, in terms of the efficacy of these drugs – both for the spectrum of depressive disorders and for panic or anxiety disorder. And there is nowhere that the authors say these drugs help people,” he added.

Moreover, the investigators’ assertion that long-term use of antidepressants causes harm is incorrect, he said.

“Yes, there are ongoing side effects that impose a burden, but that’s not the same as harm. And while the side effects are sometimes burdensome, ongoing depression is also terribly burdensome,” Dr. Muskin concluded.

Dr. Horowitz, Dr. Wilcock, and Dr. Muskin have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

When it comes to antidepressant prescribing, less may be more, new research suggests.

A new review suggests antidepressants are overprescribed and that the efficacy of these agents is questionable, leading researchers to recommend that, when physicians prescribe these medications, it should be for shorter periods.

“Antidepressants have never been shown to have a clinically significant difference from placebo in the treatment of depression,” study co\investigator Mark Horowitz, GDPsych, PhD, division of psychiatry, University College London, said in an interview.

HconQ/ThinkStock

He added antidepressants “exert profound adverse effects on the body and brain” and can be difficult to stop because of physical dependence that occurs when the brain adapts to them.

“The best way to take people off these drugs is to do so gradually enough that the unpleasant effects are minimized and in a way that means the reductions in dose get smaller and smaller as the total dose gets lower,” Dr. Horowitz said.

However, at least one expert urged caution in interpreting the review’s findings.

“The reality is that millions of people do benefit from these medications, and this review minimizes those benefits,” Philip Muskin, MD, chief of consultation-liaison for psychiatry and professor of psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital, said when approached for comment.

The findings were published online Dec. 20, 2021, in the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin.
 

Personal experience

Prescribing of newer-generation antidepressants, such as SSRIs and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), is increasing, with an estimated one in six adults in the United Kingdom receiving at least one prescription in 2019-2020, the investigators noted.

Dr. Horowitz noted a personal motivation for conducting the review. “As well as being an academic psychiatrist, I’m also a patient who has been prescribed antidepressants since age 21, when my mood was poor, due to life circumstances.”

The antidepressant “didn’t have particularly helpful effects,” but Dr. Horowitz continued taking it for 18 years. “I was told it was helpful and internalized that message. I came to understand that much of the information around antidepressants came from the drug companies that manufactured them or from academics paid by these companies.”

Dr. Horowitz is currently discontinuing his medication – a tapering process now in its third year. He said he has come to realize, in retrospect, that symptoms not initially attributed to the drug, such as fatigue, impaired concentration, and impaired memory, have improved since reducing the medication.

“That experience sensitized me to look for these symptoms in my patients and I see them; but most of my patients were told by their doctors that the cause of those problems was the depression or anxiety itself and not the drug,” he said.

Dr. Horowitz collaborated with Michael Wilcock, DTB, Pharmacy, Royal Cornwall Hospitals, NHS Trust, Truro, England, in conducting the review “to provide an independent assessment of benefits and harms of antidepressants.”

“Much of the evidence of the efficacy of antidepressants comes from randomized placebo-controlled trials,” Dr. Horowitz said. Several meta-analyses of these studies showed a difference of about two points between the agent and the placebo on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

“Although this might be statistically significant, it does not meet the threshold for a clinical significance – those aren’t the same thing,” Dr. Horowitz said. Some analyses suggest that a “minimally clinically important difference” on the HAM-D would range from 3 to 6 points.

The findings in adolescents and children are “even less convincing,” the investigators noted, citing a Cochrane review.

“This is especially concerning because the number of children and adolescents being treated with antidepressants is rapidly increasing,” Dr. Horowitz said.

Additionally, the short duration of most trials, typically 6-12 weeks, is “largely uninformative for the clinical treatment of depression.”
 

Relapse or withdrawal?

The researchers reviewed the adverse effects of long-term antidepressant use, including daytime sleepiness, dry mouth, profuse sweating, weight gain, sexual dysfunction, restlessness, and feeling “foggy or detached.”

“Antidepressants have toxic effects on the brain and cause brain damage when they artificially increase serotonin and modify brain chemistry, which is why people become sick for years after stopping,” Dr. Horowitz said. “When the drug is reduced or stopped, the brain has difficulty dealing with the sudden drop in neurotransmitters, and withdrawal symptoms result, similar to stopping caffeine, nicotine, or opioids.”

He added it is not necessarily the original condition of depression or anxiety that is recurring but rather withdrawal, which can last for months or even years after medication discontinuation.

“Unfortunately, doctors have been taught that there are minimal withdrawal symptoms, euphemized as ‘discontinuation symptoms,’ and so when patients have reported withdrawal symptoms, they have been told it is a return of their underlying condition,” Dr. Horowitz said.

“This has led to many patients being incorrectly told that they need to get back on their antidepressants,” he added.

He likened this approach to “telling people that the need to continue smoking because when they stop, they get more anxiety.” Rather, the “correct response would be that they simply need to taper off the antidepressant more carefully,” he said.
 

Helpful in the short term

Patients should be informed prior to initiation of antidepressant treatment about the risk of withdrawal effects if they stop the drug, the investigators advise. They reference the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ updated guidance, which recommends slow tapering over a period long enough to mitigate withdrawal symptoms to “tolerable levels.”

The guidance suggests that patients start with a small “test reduction.” Withdrawal symptoms should be monitored for the following 2-4 weeks, using a symptom checklist such as the Discontinuation Emergent Signs and Symptoms Scale, with subsequent reductions based on the tolerability of the process.

Gradual dose reductions and very small final doses may necessitate the use of formulations of medication other than those commonly available in tablet forms, the researchers noted. During the tapering process, patients may benefit from increased psychosocial support.

Dr. Horowitz noted that antidepressants can be helpful on a short-term basis, and likened their use to the use of a cast to stabilize a broken arm.

“It’s useful for a short period. But if you leave someone in a plastic cast permanently, their arm will shrivel and you will disable them. These drugs should be prescribed minimally, and for the shortest possible period of time,” he said.

Dr. Horowitz recommended the recent draft National Institute for Health and Care Excellence depression guidance that recommends multiple other options beyond antidepressants, including cognitive-behavioral therapy, problem solving, counseling, and exercise.
 

Lack of balance

Dr. Muskin commented that the review is helpful in guiding clinicians on how to approach tapering of antidepressants and making patients aware of discontinuation symptoms.

However, “a lot of people will read this who need treatment, but they won’t get treated because they’ll take away the message that ‘drugs don’t work,’ ” he said.

“As it is, there is already stigma and prejudice toward psychiatric illness and using medications for treatment,” said Dr. Muskin, who was not involved with the research.

The current review “isn’t balanced, in terms of the efficacy of these drugs – both for the spectrum of depressive disorders and for panic or anxiety disorder. And there is nowhere that the authors say these drugs help people,” he added.

Moreover, the investigators’ assertion that long-term use of antidepressants causes harm is incorrect, he said.

“Yes, there are ongoing side effects that impose a burden, but that’s not the same as harm. And while the side effects are sometimes burdensome, ongoing depression is also terribly burdensome,” Dr. Muskin concluded.

Dr. Horowitz, Dr. Wilcock, and Dr. Muskin have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Americans will be able to order free, at-home rapid COVID-19 tests online at COVIDTests.gov starting Jan. 19.

The tests will ship within 7 to 12 days after being ordered, senior officials from President Joe Biden’s administration said Jan. 14. The U.S. Postal Service will handle the shipping and delivery through first-class mail.

People will input their name and mailing address on the website and can share an email address to receive updates on the order, according to NPR. People won’t need to pay shipping costs or enter a credit card number to order tests, according to the website’s homepage.

The website will be offered in both English and Spanish. The Biden administration will also set up a phone number so those without internet access can place orders.

Officials didn’t share a specific time that the website will open, according to he New York Times  — simply that it will go live sometime on Jan. 19. Each household will be limited to ordering four tests.

Starting Jan. 15, people with private insurance were able to seek reimbursement for tests they purchase on their own. At the same time, some insurers have said it could take weeks to set up a system for smooth reimbursement, the newspaper reported.

Last week’s announcement is the latest step in the president’s pledge to get coronavirus tests to Americans. In December, Biden said his administration would purchase 500 million tests and distribute them to Americans for free. On Jan. 13, he announced that the administration would buy another 500 million tests, bringing the total to 1 billion.

So far, the administration has signed contracts to produce 420 million tests, the newspaper reported. With the website opening this week and the lag in shipping, the tests will likely arrive by the end of January at the earliest, which could be after the peak of the current coronavirus surge in some parts of the country.

At-home tests have been in high demand, with some pharmacies, retailers, and websites reporting no stock in recent weeks. People have lined up at community testing sites for hours to get tested as the national average of daily cases has climbed above 800,000 last week.

Some consumers have also been confused about how or when to use at-home tests. On Jan. 14, Biden administration officials said that people should use rapid tests for three reasons:

• If they begin to experience COVID-19 symptoms;
• When it has been five or more days after being exposed to someone who tests positive;
• If they are gathering indoors with a high-risk person and want to check if they are negative.

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

Americans will be able to order free, at-home rapid COVID-19 tests online at COVIDTests.gov starting Jan. 19.

The tests will ship within 7 to 12 days after being ordered, senior officials from President Joe Biden’s administration said Jan. 14. The U.S. Postal Service will handle the shipping and delivery through first-class mail.

People will input their name and mailing address on the website and can share an email address to receive updates on the order, according to NPR. People won’t need to pay shipping costs or enter a credit card number to order tests, according to the website’s homepage.

The website will be offered in both English and Spanish. The Biden administration will also set up a phone number so those without internet access can place orders.

Officials didn’t share a specific time that the website will open, according to he New York Times  — simply that it will go live sometime on Jan. 19. Each household will be limited to ordering four tests.

Starting Jan. 15, people with private insurance were able to seek reimbursement for tests they purchase on their own. At the same time, some insurers have said it could take weeks to set up a system for smooth reimbursement, the newspaper reported.

Last week’s announcement is the latest step in the president’s pledge to get coronavirus tests to Americans. In December, Biden said his administration would purchase 500 million tests and distribute them to Americans for free. On Jan. 13, he announced that the administration would buy another 500 million tests, bringing the total to 1 billion.

So far, the administration has signed contracts to produce 420 million tests, the newspaper reported. With the website opening this week and the lag in shipping, the tests will likely arrive by the end of January at the earliest, which could be after the peak of the current coronavirus surge in some parts of the country.

At-home tests have been in high demand, with some pharmacies, retailers, and websites reporting no stock in recent weeks. People have lined up at community testing sites for hours to get tested as the national average of daily cases has climbed above 800,000 last week.

Some consumers have also been confused about how or when to use at-home tests. On Jan. 14, Biden administration officials said that people should use rapid tests for three reasons:

• If they begin to experience COVID-19 symptoms;
• When it has been five or more days after being exposed to someone who tests positive;
• If they are gathering indoors with a high-risk person and want to check if they are negative.

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

Americans will be able to order free, at-home rapid COVID-19 tests online at COVIDTests.gov starting Jan. 19.

The tests will ship within 7 to 12 days after being ordered, senior officials from President Joe Biden’s administration said Jan. 14. The U.S. Postal Service will handle the shipping and delivery through first-class mail.

People will input their name and mailing address on the website and can share an email address to receive updates on the order, according to NPR. People won’t need to pay shipping costs or enter a credit card number to order tests, according to the website’s homepage.

The website will be offered in both English and Spanish. The Biden administration will also set up a phone number so those without internet access can place orders.

Officials didn’t share a specific time that the website will open, according to he New York Times  — simply that it will go live sometime on Jan. 19. Each household will be limited to ordering four tests.

Starting Jan. 15, people with private insurance were able to seek reimbursement for tests they purchase on their own. At the same time, some insurers have said it could take weeks to set up a system for smooth reimbursement, the newspaper reported.

Last week’s announcement is the latest step in the president’s pledge to get coronavirus tests to Americans. In December, Biden said his administration would purchase 500 million tests and distribute them to Americans for free. On Jan. 13, he announced that the administration would buy another 500 million tests, bringing the total to 1 billion.

So far, the administration has signed contracts to produce 420 million tests, the newspaper reported. With the website opening this week and the lag in shipping, the tests will likely arrive by the end of January at the earliest, which could be after the peak of the current coronavirus surge in some parts of the country.

At-home tests have been in high demand, with some pharmacies, retailers, and websites reporting no stock in recent weeks. People have lined up at community testing sites for hours to get tested as the national average of daily cases has climbed above 800,000 last week.

Some consumers have also been confused about how or when to use at-home tests. On Jan. 14, Biden administration officials said that people should use rapid tests for three reasons:

• If they begin to experience COVID-19 symptoms;
• When it has been five or more days after being exposed to someone who tests positive;
• If they are gathering indoors with a high-risk person and want to check if they are negative.

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

Fed up with personal attacks on the nation’s top infectious disease expert, scores of leading scientists and physicians have signed an open letter defending Anthony Fauci, MD, for his years of service to the public and his leadership on the pandemic.

“We deplore the personal attacks on Dr. Fauci. The criticism is inaccurate, unscientific, ill-founded in the facts and, increasingly, motivated by partisan politics,” reads the letter of support, initiated by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, and signed by almost 300 scientists and public health and medical professionals, including Nobel Laureates, a former Republican senator, and leadership of medical societies and institutions.

Dr. Fauci has led the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and serves as President Biden’s top medical advisor on the pandemic.

“Dr. Anthony Fauci has served the U.S.A. with wisdom and integrity for nearly 40 years. Through HIV, Ebola, and now COVID, he has unswervingly served the United States guiding the country to very successful outcomes. He has our unreserved respect and trust as a scientist and a national leader,” the letter reads.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

At a particularly contentious congressional hearing earlier this week on the federal government’s response to Omicron, Dr. Fauci fought back, telling Sen. Marshall, “You’re so misinformed, it’s extraordinary.”

Dr. Fauci, who has received death threats and harassment of his family, told Sen. Rand that his “completely untrue” statements and rhetoric “kindles the crazies out there.”
 

‘Sagacious counsel’

The personal attacks on Dr. Fauci are a “distraction from what should be the national focus – working together to finally overcome a pandemic that is killing about 500,000 people a year. We are grateful for Dr. Fauci’s dedication and tireless efforts to help the country through this pandemic and other health crises,” the letter reads.

“Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has provided the American political leadership and the public with sagacious counsel in these most difficult of times. His advice has been as well informed as data and the rapidly evolving circumstances allowed,” it states.

“Importantly,” Dr. Fauci has given his advice with “humility, being clear about what we know and what is unknown, but requires judgment. He has consistently emphasized the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination. These are standard and necessary public health measures that we all support,” the letter states.

“We are grateful that Dr. Fauci has consistently stated the science in a way that represents the facts as they emerge, without unwarranted speculation.”

“Sadly, in these politically polarized times where misinformation contaminates the United States’ response to the pandemic, routine public health measures have become unnecessarily controversial, undermining the effectiveness of our country’s response,” the letter reads.

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

Fed up with personal attacks on the nation’s top infectious disease expert, scores of leading scientists and physicians have signed an open letter defending Anthony Fauci, MD, for his years of service to the public and his leadership on the pandemic.

“We deplore the personal attacks on Dr. Fauci. The criticism is inaccurate, unscientific, ill-founded in the facts and, increasingly, motivated by partisan politics,” reads the letter of support, initiated by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, and signed by almost 300 scientists and public health and medical professionals, including Nobel Laureates, a former Republican senator, and leadership of medical societies and institutions.

Dr. Fauci has led the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and serves as President Biden’s top medical advisor on the pandemic.

“Dr. Anthony Fauci has served the U.S.A. with wisdom and integrity for nearly 40 years. Through HIV, Ebola, and now COVID, he has unswervingly served the United States guiding the country to very successful outcomes. He has our unreserved respect and trust as a scientist and a national leader,” the letter reads.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

At a particularly contentious congressional hearing earlier this week on the federal government’s response to Omicron, Dr. Fauci fought back, telling Sen. Marshall, “You’re so misinformed, it’s extraordinary.”

Dr. Fauci, who has received death threats and harassment of his family, told Sen. Rand that his “completely untrue” statements and rhetoric “kindles the crazies out there.”
 

‘Sagacious counsel’

The personal attacks on Dr. Fauci are a “distraction from what should be the national focus – working together to finally overcome a pandemic that is killing about 500,000 people a year. We are grateful for Dr. Fauci’s dedication and tireless efforts to help the country through this pandemic and other health crises,” the letter reads.

“Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has provided the American political leadership and the public with sagacious counsel in these most difficult of times. His advice has been as well informed as data and the rapidly evolving circumstances allowed,” it states.

“Importantly,” Dr. Fauci has given his advice with “humility, being clear about what we know and what is unknown, but requires judgment. He has consistently emphasized the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination. These are standard and necessary public health measures that we all support,” the letter states.

“We are grateful that Dr. Fauci has consistently stated the science in a way that represents the facts as they emerge, without unwarranted speculation.”

“Sadly, in these politically polarized times where misinformation contaminates the United States’ response to the pandemic, routine public health measures have become unnecessarily controversial, undermining the effectiveness of our country’s response,” the letter reads.

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

Fed up with personal attacks on the nation’s top infectious disease expert, scores of leading scientists and physicians have signed an open letter defending Anthony Fauci, MD, for his years of service to the public and his leadership on the pandemic.

“We deplore the personal attacks on Dr. Fauci. The criticism is inaccurate, unscientific, ill-founded in the facts and, increasingly, motivated by partisan politics,” reads the letter of support, initiated by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, and signed by almost 300 scientists and public health and medical professionals, including Nobel Laureates, a former Republican senator, and leadership of medical societies and institutions.

Dr. Fauci has led the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and serves as President Biden’s top medical advisor on the pandemic.

“Dr. Anthony Fauci has served the U.S.A. with wisdom and integrity for nearly 40 years. Through HIV, Ebola, and now COVID, he has unswervingly served the United States guiding the country to very successful outcomes. He has our unreserved respect and trust as a scientist and a national leader,” the letter reads.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

At a particularly contentious congressional hearing earlier this week on the federal government’s response to Omicron, Dr. Fauci fought back, telling Sen. Marshall, “You’re so misinformed, it’s extraordinary.”

Dr. Fauci, who has received death threats and harassment of his family, told Sen. Rand that his “completely untrue” statements and rhetoric “kindles the crazies out there.”
 

‘Sagacious counsel’

The personal attacks on Dr. Fauci are a “distraction from what should be the national focus – working together to finally overcome a pandemic that is killing about 500,000 people a year. We are grateful for Dr. Fauci’s dedication and tireless efforts to help the country through this pandemic and other health crises,” the letter reads.

“Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has provided the American political leadership and the public with sagacious counsel in these most difficult of times. His advice has been as well informed as data and the rapidly evolving circumstances allowed,” it states.

“Importantly,” Dr. Fauci has given his advice with “humility, being clear about what we know and what is unknown, but requires judgment. He has consistently emphasized the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination. These are standard and necessary public health measures that we all support,” the letter states.

“We are grateful that Dr. Fauci has consistently stated the science in a way that represents the facts as they emerge, without unwarranted speculation.”

“Sadly, in these politically polarized times where misinformation contaminates the United States’ response to the pandemic, routine public health measures have become unnecessarily controversial, undermining the effectiveness of our country’s response,” the letter reads.

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

Creators of a pilot program that educates preschoolers about good heart health have validated a template for successful early childhood intervention that, they claim, provides a pathway for translating scientific evidence into the community and classroom for educational purposes to encourage long-lasting lifestyle changes.

That validation supports the creators' plans to take the program into more schools.

They reported key lessons in crafting the program, known as the SI! Program (for Salud Integral-Comprehensive Health), online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Mount Sinai Hospital

“This is a research-based program that uses randomized clinical trial evidence with implementation strategies to design educational health promotion programs,” senior author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, founder and trustees chairman of the Foundation for Science, Health, and Education (SHE) based in Barcelona, under whose aegis the SI! Program was implemented, said in an interview. Dr. Fuster is also director of Mount Sinai Heart and physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, and general director of the National Center for Cardiovascular Investigation (CNIC) in Madrid, Spain’s equivalent of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

“There are specific times in a child’s life when improvements can be made to enhance long-term cardiovascular health status,” said Rodrigo Fernández-Jiménez, MD, PhD, group leader of the cardiovascular health and imaging lab at CNIC and study coauthor. “Our review, and previous studies, suggest that 4-5 years of age is the most favorable time to start a school-based intervention focused on healthy habits.”

A key piece of the SI! Program used a Sesame Street character, known as Dr. Ruster, a Muppet based on Dr. Fuster, to introduce and convey most messages and activities to the preschool children. The program also used a heart-shaped mascot named “Cardio” to teach about healthy behaviors. Other components include video segments, a colorful storybook, an interactive board game, flash cards, and a teacher’s guide. The activities and messages were tailored based on the country in which the program was implemented.
 

A decade of experience

The review evaluated 10 years of experience with the preschool-based program, drawing upon cluster-randomized clinical trials of the program in three countries with different socioeconomic conditions: Colombia, Spain, and the United States. The studies randomized schools to receive the SI! Program for 4 months or to a control group and included more than 3,800 children from 50 schools, along with their parents or caregivers and teachers. The studies found significant increases in preschoolers’ knowledge, attitudes, and habits toward healthy eating and living an active lifestyle. Now, the SI! Program is expanding into more than 250 schools in Spain and more than 40 schools in all five boroughs of New York City.

“This is a multidimensional program,” Dr. Fuster said. The review identified five stages for implementing the program: dissemination; adoption; implementation; evaluation; and institutionalization.

Dissemination involves three substages for intervention: components, design, and strategy. With regard to the components, said Dr. Fuster, “We’re targeting children to educate them in four topics: how the body works; nutritional and dietary requirements; physical activity; and the need to control emotions – to say no in the future when they’re confronted with alcohol, drugs, and tobacco.”

Design involved a multidisciplinary team of experts to develop the intervention, Dr. Fuster said. The strategy itself enlists parents and teachers in the implementation, but goes beyond that. “This is a community,” Dr. Fuster said. Hence, the school environment and classroom itself are also engaged to support the message of the four topics.

Dr. Fuster said future research should look at knowledge, attitude, and habits and biological outcomes in children who’ve been in the SI! Program when they reach adolescence. “Our hypothesis is that we can do this in older children, but when they reach age 10 we want to reintervene in them,” Dr. Fuster said. “Humans need reintervention. Our findings don’t get into sustainability.” He added that further research should also identify socioeconomic factors that influence child health.

Expanding the program across the New York City’s five boroughs “offers a unique opportunity to explore which socioeconomic factors, at both the family and borough level, and may eventually affect children’s health, how they are implicated in the intervention’s effectiveness, and how they can be addressed to reduce the gap in health inequalities,” he said. 

Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician affiliated with Yale New Haven (Conn.) Medical Center, noted the program’s multidimensional nature is an important element. “I think what is so important about this intervention is that it is not one single intervention but a curriculum that takes a significant amount of time (up to 50 hours) that allows for repetition of the information, which allows it to become remembered,” she said in an interview. “I also think incorporating families in the intervention is key as that is where change often has to happen.”

While she said the program may provide a template for a mental health curriculum, she added, “My concern is that teachers are already feeling overwhelmed and this may be viewed as another burden.”

The American Heart Association provided funding for the study in the United States. Dr Fernández-Jiménez has received funding from the Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria–Instituto de Salud Carlos III, which is cofunded by the European Regional Development Fund/European Social Fund. Dr. Fuster and Dr. Kinsella have no relevant disclosures.

Creators of a pilot program that educates preschoolers about good heart health have validated a template for successful early childhood intervention that, they claim, provides a pathway for translating scientific evidence into the community and classroom for educational purposes to encourage long-lasting lifestyle changes.

That validation supports the creators' plans to take the program into more schools.

They reported key lessons in crafting the program, known as the SI! Program (for Salud Integral-Comprehensive Health), online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Mount Sinai Hospital

“This is a research-based program that uses randomized clinical trial evidence with implementation strategies to design educational health promotion programs,” senior author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, founder and trustees chairman of the Foundation for Science, Health, and Education (SHE) based in Barcelona, under whose aegis the SI! Program was implemented, said in an interview. Dr. Fuster is also director of Mount Sinai Heart and physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, and general director of the National Center for Cardiovascular Investigation (CNIC) in Madrid, Spain’s equivalent of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

“There are specific times in a child’s life when improvements can be made to enhance long-term cardiovascular health status,” said Rodrigo Fernández-Jiménez, MD, PhD, group leader of the cardiovascular health and imaging lab at CNIC and study coauthor. “Our review, and previous studies, suggest that 4-5 years of age is the most favorable time to start a school-based intervention focused on healthy habits.”

A key piece of the SI! Program used a Sesame Street character, known as Dr. Ruster, a Muppet based on Dr. Fuster, to introduce and convey most messages and activities to the preschool children. The program also used a heart-shaped mascot named “Cardio” to teach about healthy behaviors. Other components include video segments, a colorful storybook, an interactive board game, flash cards, and a teacher’s guide. The activities and messages were tailored based on the country in which the program was implemented.
 

A decade of experience

The review evaluated 10 years of experience with the preschool-based program, drawing upon cluster-randomized clinical trials of the program in three countries with different socioeconomic conditions: Colombia, Spain, and the United States. The studies randomized schools to receive the SI! Program for 4 months or to a control group and included more than 3,800 children from 50 schools, along with their parents or caregivers and teachers. The studies found significant increases in preschoolers’ knowledge, attitudes, and habits toward healthy eating and living an active lifestyle. Now, the SI! Program is expanding into more than 250 schools in Spain and more than 40 schools in all five boroughs of New York City.

“This is a multidimensional program,” Dr. Fuster said. The review identified five stages for implementing the program: dissemination; adoption; implementation; evaluation; and institutionalization.

Dissemination involves three substages for intervention: components, design, and strategy. With regard to the components, said Dr. Fuster, “We’re targeting children to educate them in four topics: how the body works; nutritional and dietary requirements; physical activity; and the need to control emotions – to say no in the future when they’re confronted with alcohol, drugs, and tobacco.”

Design involved a multidisciplinary team of experts to develop the intervention, Dr. Fuster said. The strategy itself enlists parents and teachers in the implementation, but goes beyond that. “This is a community,” Dr. Fuster said. Hence, the school environment and classroom itself are also engaged to support the message of the four topics.

Dr. Fuster said future research should look at knowledge, attitude, and habits and biological outcomes in children who’ve been in the SI! Program when they reach adolescence. “Our hypothesis is that we can do this in older children, but when they reach age 10 we want to reintervene in them,” Dr. Fuster said. “Humans need reintervention. Our findings don’t get into sustainability.” He added that further research should also identify socioeconomic factors that influence child health.

Expanding the program across the New York City’s five boroughs “offers a unique opportunity to explore which socioeconomic factors, at both the family and borough level, and may eventually affect children’s health, how they are implicated in the intervention’s effectiveness, and how they can be addressed to reduce the gap in health inequalities,” he said. 

Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician affiliated with Yale New Haven (Conn.) Medical Center, noted the program’s multidimensional nature is an important element. “I think what is so important about this intervention is that it is not one single intervention but a curriculum that takes a significant amount of time (up to 50 hours) that allows for repetition of the information, which allows it to become remembered,” she said in an interview. “I also think incorporating families in the intervention is key as that is where change often has to happen.”

While she said the program may provide a template for a mental health curriculum, she added, “My concern is that teachers are already feeling overwhelmed and this may be viewed as another burden.”

The American Heart Association provided funding for the study in the United States. Dr Fernández-Jiménez has received funding from the Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria–Instituto de Salud Carlos III, which is cofunded by the European Regional Development Fund/European Social Fund. Dr. Fuster and Dr. Kinsella have no relevant disclosures.

Creators of a pilot program that educates preschoolers about good heart health have validated a template for successful early childhood intervention that, they claim, provides a pathway for translating scientific evidence into the community and classroom for educational purposes to encourage long-lasting lifestyle changes.

That validation supports the creators' plans to take the program into more schools.

They reported key lessons in crafting the program, known as the SI! Program (for Salud Integral-Comprehensive Health), online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Mount Sinai Hospital

“This is a research-based program that uses randomized clinical trial evidence with implementation strategies to design educational health promotion programs,” senior author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, founder and trustees chairman of the Foundation for Science, Health, and Education (SHE) based in Barcelona, under whose aegis the SI! Program was implemented, said in an interview. Dr. Fuster is also director of Mount Sinai Heart and physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, and general director of the National Center for Cardiovascular Investigation (CNIC) in Madrid, Spain’s equivalent of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

“There are specific times in a child’s life when improvements can be made to enhance long-term cardiovascular health status,” said Rodrigo Fernández-Jiménez, MD, PhD, group leader of the cardiovascular health and imaging lab at CNIC and study coauthor. “Our review, and previous studies, suggest that 4-5 years of age is the most favorable time to start a school-based intervention focused on healthy habits.”

A key piece of the SI! Program used a Sesame Street character, known as Dr. Ruster, a Muppet based on Dr. Fuster, to introduce and convey most messages and activities to the preschool children. The program also used a heart-shaped mascot named “Cardio” to teach about healthy behaviors. Other components include video segments, a colorful storybook, an interactive board game, flash cards, and a teacher’s guide. The activities and messages were tailored based on the country in which the program was implemented.
 

A decade of experience

The review evaluated 10 years of experience with the preschool-based program, drawing upon cluster-randomized clinical trials of the program in three countries with different socioeconomic conditions: Colombia, Spain, and the United States. The studies randomized schools to receive the SI! Program for 4 months or to a control group and included more than 3,800 children from 50 schools, along with their parents or caregivers and teachers. The studies found significant increases in preschoolers’ knowledge, attitudes, and habits toward healthy eating and living an active lifestyle. Now, the SI! Program is expanding into more than 250 schools in Spain and more than 40 schools in all five boroughs of New York City.

“This is a multidimensional program,” Dr. Fuster said. The review identified five stages for implementing the program: dissemination; adoption; implementation; evaluation; and institutionalization.

Dissemination involves three substages for intervention: components, design, and strategy. With regard to the components, said Dr. Fuster, “We’re targeting children to educate them in four topics: how the body works; nutritional and dietary requirements; physical activity; and the need to control emotions – to say no in the future when they’re confronted with alcohol, drugs, and tobacco.”

Design involved a multidisciplinary team of experts to develop the intervention, Dr. Fuster said. The strategy itself enlists parents and teachers in the implementation, but goes beyond that. “This is a community,” Dr. Fuster said. Hence, the school environment and classroom itself are also engaged to support the message of the four topics.

Dr. Fuster said future research should look at knowledge, attitude, and habits and biological outcomes in children who’ve been in the SI! Program when they reach adolescence. “Our hypothesis is that we can do this in older children, but when they reach age 10 we want to reintervene in them,” Dr. Fuster said. “Humans need reintervention. Our findings don’t get into sustainability.” He added that further research should also identify socioeconomic factors that influence child health.

Expanding the program across the New York City’s five boroughs “offers a unique opportunity to explore which socioeconomic factors, at both the family and borough level, and may eventually affect children’s health, how they are implicated in the intervention’s effectiveness, and how they can be addressed to reduce the gap in health inequalities,” he said. 

Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician affiliated with Yale New Haven (Conn.) Medical Center, noted the program’s multidimensional nature is an important element. “I think what is so important about this intervention is that it is not one single intervention but a curriculum that takes a significant amount of time (up to 50 hours) that allows for repetition of the information, which allows it to become remembered,” she said in an interview. “I also think incorporating families in the intervention is key as that is where change often has to happen.”

While she said the program may provide a template for a mental health curriculum, she added, “My concern is that teachers are already feeling overwhelmed and this may be viewed as another burden.”

The American Heart Association provided funding for the study in the United States. Dr Fernández-Jiménez has received funding from the Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria–Instituto de Salud Carlos III, which is cofunded by the European Regional Development Fund/European Social Fund. Dr. Fuster and Dr. Kinsella have no relevant disclosures.

The Food and Drug Administration on Jan. 14 approved two oral JAK-1 inhibitors for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) – upadacitinib and abrocitinib – making them the first oral JAK-inhibitors available for this indication in the United States.

“It’s big news because a few years ago we didn’t have any systemic treatments that are safer than the classical immunosuppressants like cyclosporine and methotrexate,” Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, Waldman professor and system chair of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, told this news organization commenting on upadacitinib’s approval.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Upadacitinib

The approval of upadacitinib (Rinvoq), marketed by AbbVie, for moderate to severe AD in patients ages 12 and older, comes on the heels of findings from three pivotal phase 3 studies involving more than 2,500 adults and children 12 years of age and older with moderate to severe AD: Measure Up 1 and 2, led by Dr. Guttman-Yassky, which evaluated upadacitinib compared with placebo, and AD UP, which compared upadacitinib along with topical corticosteroids, compared with placebo.

Across the three studies, upadacitinib – both 15 mg and 30 mg once daily monotherapy – met all primary and secondary endpoints at week 16, with some patients achieving higher levels of skin clearance based on the Eczema Area and Severity Index 90 (EASI-90) and EASI-100.

“I always say that patients with AD need options,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said. “We need biologics. We need oral medications. Not everybody likes an injectable. The plus of the class of JAK inhibitors in general is the quick onset of action.” Many patients in her clinic are maintained on upadacitinib more than two years later “and are super happy,” she said. “Many of them failed cyclosporine and other immunosuppressants such as methotrexate and prednisone.”

She predicted that health insurance companies will find coverage cost-effective “because it sets a new bar for efficacy, and because many patients have failed other treatments.”

Abrocitinib

Abrocitinib (Cibinqo), marketed by Pfizer, was approved for adults with moderate to severe AD. The approval was based on results of five clinical trials from a large-scale clinical trial program of more than 1,600 patients. The recommended doses are 100 mg and 200 mg, with the 200 mg dose recommended for patients who are not responding to the 100 mg dose.

The labeling of abrocitinib and upadacitinib include a boxed warning for JAK inhibitors, regarding the risk of serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis.

Dr. Guttman-Yassky has served as a principal investigator for AbbVie and has received consulting fees from the company.




 

The Food and Drug Administration on Jan. 14 approved two oral JAK-1 inhibitors for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) – upadacitinib and abrocitinib – making them the first oral JAK-inhibitors available for this indication in the United States.

“It’s big news because a few years ago we didn’t have any systemic treatments that are safer than the classical immunosuppressants like cyclosporine and methotrexate,” Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, Waldman professor and system chair of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, told this news organization commenting on upadacitinib’s approval.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Upadacitinib

The approval of upadacitinib (Rinvoq), marketed by AbbVie, for moderate to severe AD in patients ages 12 and older, comes on the heels of findings from three pivotal phase 3 studies involving more than 2,500 adults and children 12 years of age and older with moderate to severe AD: Measure Up 1 and 2, led by Dr. Guttman-Yassky, which evaluated upadacitinib compared with placebo, and AD UP, which compared upadacitinib along with topical corticosteroids, compared with placebo.

Across the three studies, upadacitinib – both 15 mg and 30 mg once daily monotherapy – met all primary and secondary endpoints at week 16, with some patients achieving higher levels of skin clearance based on the Eczema Area and Severity Index 90 (EASI-90) and EASI-100.

“I always say that patients with AD need options,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said. “We need biologics. We need oral medications. Not everybody likes an injectable. The plus of the class of JAK inhibitors in general is the quick onset of action.” Many patients in her clinic are maintained on upadacitinib more than two years later “and are super happy,” she said. “Many of them failed cyclosporine and other immunosuppressants such as methotrexate and prednisone.”

She predicted that health insurance companies will find coverage cost-effective “because it sets a new bar for efficacy, and because many patients have failed other treatments.”

Abrocitinib

Abrocitinib (Cibinqo), marketed by Pfizer, was approved for adults with moderate to severe AD. The approval was based on results of five clinical trials from a large-scale clinical trial program of more than 1,600 patients. The recommended doses are 100 mg and 200 mg, with the 200 mg dose recommended for patients who are not responding to the 100 mg dose.

The labeling of abrocitinib and upadacitinib include a boxed warning for JAK inhibitors, regarding the risk of serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis.

Dr. Guttman-Yassky has served as a principal investigator for AbbVie and has received consulting fees from the company.




 

The Food and Drug Administration on Jan. 14 approved two oral JAK-1 inhibitors for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) – upadacitinib and abrocitinib – making them the first oral JAK-inhibitors available for this indication in the United States.

“It’s big news because a few years ago we didn’t have any systemic treatments that are safer than the classical immunosuppressants like cyclosporine and methotrexate,” Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, Waldman professor and system chair of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, told this news organization commenting on upadacitinib’s approval.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Upadacitinib

The approval of upadacitinib (Rinvoq), marketed by AbbVie, for moderate to severe AD in patients ages 12 and older, comes on the heels of findings from three pivotal phase 3 studies involving more than 2,500 adults and children 12 years of age and older with moderate to severe AD: Measure Up 1 and 2, led by Dr. Guttman-Yassky, which evaluated upadacitinib compared with placebo, and AD UP, which compared upadacitinib along with topical corticosteroids, compared with placebo.

Across the three studies, upadacitinib – both 15 mg and 30 mg once daily monotherapy – met all primary and secondary endpoints at week 16, with some patients achieving higher levels of skin clearance based on the Eczema Area and Severity Index 90 (EASI-90) and EASI-100.

“I always say that patients with AD need options,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said. “We need biologics. We need oral medications. Not everybody likes an injectable. The plus of the class of JAK inhibitors in general is the quick onset of action.” Many patients in her clinic are maintained on upadacitinib more than two years later “and are super happy,” she said. “Many of them failed cyclosporine and other immunosuppressants such as methotrexate and prednisone.”

She predicted that health insurance companies will find coverage cost-effective “because it sets a new bar for efficacy, and because many patients have failed other treatments.”

Abrocitinib

Abrocitinib (Cibinqo), marketed by Pfizer, was approved for adults with moderate to severe AD. The approval was based on results of five clinical trials from a large-scale clinical trial program of more than 1,600 patients. The recommended doses are 100 mg and 200 mg, with the 200 mg dose recommended for patients who are not responding to the 100 mg dose.

The labeling of abrocitinib and upadacitinib include a boxed warning for JAK inhibitors, regarding the risk of serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis.

Dr. Guttman-Yassky has served as a principal investigator for AbbVie and has received consulting fees from the company.




 

The Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group (IPMG) reports that most users of the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) should now have access to their accounts, one month after a modified program was launched, the Food and Drug Administration announced on Jan. 14.

The IPMG has “created a new tool within the system to help resolve account access for some user groups without using the call center. This tool is intended to allow prescribers and designees to send login links directly to their patients’ desired email address through the Manage Patients page of the iPLEDGE REMS portal,” the FDA statement said.

“Prescribers can also send login links to their designees still having difficulty accessing their iPLEDGE account,” and users should check their emails for messages from iPLEDGE, including spam folders, the FDA advises. The iPLEDGE strategy is designed to prevent fetal exposure to isotretinoin, which is highly teratogenic.

Days after the new, gender-neutral approach to the isotretinoin risk mitigation program was launched on Dec. 13, the FDA convened an emergency meeting with representatives from the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) to discuss the problematic rollout of the program, which was described as disastrous, chaotic, and a failure, with dermatologists on Twitter and elsewhere expressing anger and frustration over not being able to access the program or reach the call center.

A statement by the FDA on Dec. 23 followed, urging manufacturers to develop solutions for the website and to work with the AADA and pharmacy organizations to find solutions that would minimize treatment interruptions during the transition.

The modified REMS, launched on Dec. 13, is designed to make it more inclusive for transgender patients prescribed isotretinoin. Instead of three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males), patients who are prescribed isotretinoin for acne are assigned to one of two risk categories: those who can get pregnant and those who cannot get pregnant.

In the Jan. 14 statement, the FDA notes that the agency is continuing to work with the IPMG regarding the problems clinicians, pharmacists, and patients have had with accessing iPLEDGE over the last month.

“Although there has been progress, there is a significant amount of work still to be done,” the FDA acknowledged. “While we consider potential steps within the scope of FDA’s authorities, we will continue to meet with the IPMG for updates on the status of the problems with the iPLEDGE REMS and their progress towards having the system work as intended for all users.”

The Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group (IPMG) reports that most users of the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) should now have access to their accounts, one month after a modified program was launched, the Food and Drug Administration announced on Jan. 14.

The IPMG has “created a new tool within the system to help resolve account access for some user groups without using the call center. This tool is intended to allow prescribers and designees to send login links directly to their patients’ desired email address through the Manage Patients page of the iPLEDGE REMS portal,” the FDA statement said.

“Prescribers can also send login links to their designees still having difficulty accessing their iPLEDGE account,” and users should check their emails for messages from iPLEDGE, including spam folders, the FDA advises. The iPLEDGE strategy is designed to prevent fetal exposure to isotretinoin, which is highly teratogenic.

Days after the new, gender-neutral approach to the isotretinoin risk mitigation program was launched on Dec. 13, the FDA convened an emergency meeting with representatives from the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) to discuss the problematic rollout of the program, which was described as disastrous, chaotic, and a failure, with dermatologists on Twitter and elsewhere expressing anger and frustration over not being able to access the program or reach the call center.

A statement by the FDA on Dec. 23 followed, urging manufacturers to develop solutions for the website and to work with the AADA and pharmacy organizations to find solutions that would minimize treatment interruptions during the transition.

The modified REMS, launched on Dec. 13, is designed to make it more inclusive for transgender patients prescribed isotretinoin. Instead of three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males), patients who are prescribed isotretinoin for acne are assigned to one of two risk categories: those who can get pregnant and those who cannot get pregnant.

In the Jan. 14 statement, the FDA notes that the agency is continuing to work with the IPMG regarding the problems clinicians, pharmacists, and patients have had with accessing iPLEDGE over the last month.

“Although there has been progress, there is a significant amount of work still to be done,” the FDA acknowledged. “While we consider potential steps within the scope of FDA’s authorities, we will continue to meet with the IPMG for updates on the status of the problems with the iPLEDGE REMS and their progress towards having the system work as intended for all users.”

The Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group (IPMG) reports that most users of the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) should now have access to their accounts, one month after a modified program was launched, the Food and Drug Administration announced on Jan. 14.

The IPMG has “created a new tool within the system to help resolve account access for some user groups without using the call center. This tool is intended to allow prescribers and designees to send login links directly to their patients’ desired email address through the Manage Patients page of the iPLEDGE REMS portal,” the FDA statement said.

“Prescribers can also send login links to their designees still having difficulty accessing their iPLEDGE account,” and users should check their emails for messages from iPLEDGE, including spam folders, the FDA advises. The iPLEDGE strategy is designed to prevent fetal exposure to isotretinoin, which is highly teratogenic.

Days after the new, gender-neutral approach to the isotretinoin risk mitigation program was launched on Dec. 13, the FDA convened an emergency meeting with representatives from the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) to discuss the problematic rollout of the program, which was described as disastrous, chaotic, and a failure, with dermatologists on Twitter and elsewhere expressing anger and frustration over not being able to access the program or reach the call center.

A statement by the FDA on Dec. 23 followed, urging manufacturers to develop solutions for the website and to work with the AADA and pharmacy organizations to find solutions that would minimize treatment interruptions during the transition.

The modified REMS, launched on Dec. 13, is designed to make it more inclusive for transgender patients prescribed isotretinoin. Instead of three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males), patients who are prescribed isotretinoin for acne are assigned to one of two risk categories: those who can get pregnant and those who cannot get pregnant.

In the Jan. 14 statement, the FDA notes that the agency is continuing to work with the IPMG regarding the problems clinicians, pharmacists, and patients have had with accessing iPLEDGE over the last month.

“Although there has been progress, there is a significant amount of work still to be done,” the FDA acknowledged. “While we consider potential steps within the scope of FDA’s authorities, we will continue to meet with the IPMG for updates on the status of the problems with the iPLEDGE REMS and their progress towards having the system work as intended for all users.”

This commentary was submitted as a rebuttal to “PA name change bad for patients and the profession.”

To the Editor:

At a time when COVID-19 cases are climbing and health care workers are struggling to meet the needs of our nation’s healthcare system, the commentary by Rebekah Bernard, MD, divides health care providers and demeans the education, experience, and value of physician associates (PA) and nurse practitioners (NP) in our opinion.

The ill timing of this negative message is equally matched by her mischaracterization of the PA title change and PA efforts to eliminate outdated administrative barriers, as well as her baseless attack on NP education and clinical training.

Let us be clear about one thing: What patients really want and deserve is access to high-quality care delivered by the health care provider of their choice. Patients deserve health care providers who are committed to modern, integrated, and coordinated health care delivery, led by professionals who are dedicated to ensuring that everyone is practicing to the full extent of their education, clinical experience, and scope of practice. Patients deserve health care providers who respect each other and work together to embrace solutions that will improve health care for the future.

Decades of research confirm the high quality of PA- and NP-delivered health care. The evidence is in, and it is irrefutable: PA- and NP-delivered care is associated with improved access to care, lower health care costs, and fewer avoidable emergency room visits.

With regard to the PA title change, the fact is this: Changing the profession’s title does not change what PAs do or affect a PA’s scope of practice. The new title – physician associate – directly addresses the common misperception that PAs merely “assist” physicians. It is in the best interest of patients and the health care system for PAs to hold a professional title that ensures clarity about the work that PAs do.

For the sake of patients, we urge Bernard and her organization to stop continuously attacking other professions and focus on what really matters – providing access to safe, effective, equitable, high-quality care to all patients.

We are committed to patient-centered, coordinated health care, and we continue to work with like-minded physicians and other colleagues to make this a reality.

Ms. Orozco is president and chair of the board of directors for the American Academy of Physician Associates. Dr. Kapu is president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners.


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

This commentary was submitted as a rebuttal to “PA name change bad for patients and the profession.”

To the Editor:

At a time when COVID-19 cases are climbing and health care workers are struggling to meet the needs of our nation’s healthcare system, the commentary by Rebekah Bernard, MD, divides health care providers and demeans the education, experience, and value of physician associates (PA) and nurse practitioners (NP) in our opinion.

The ill timing of this negative message is equally matched by her mischaracterization of the PA title change and PA efforts to eliminate outdated administrative barriers, as well as her baseless attack on NP education and clinical training.

Let us be clear about one thing: What patients really want and deserve is access to high-quality care delivered by the health care provider of their choice. Patients deserve health care providers who are committed to modern, integrated, and coordinated health care delivery, led by professionals who are dedicated to ensuring that everyone is practicing to the full extent of their education, clinical experience, and scope of practice. Patients deserve health care providers who respect each other and work together to embrace solutions that will improve health care for the future.

Decades of research confirm the high quality of PA- and NP-delivered health care. The evidence is in, and it is irrefutable: PA- and NP-delivered care is associated with improved access to care, lower health care costs, and fewer avoidable emergency room visits.

With regard to the PA title change, the fact is this: Changing the profession’s title does not change what PAs do or affect a PA’s scope of practice. The new title – physician associate – directly addresses the common misperception that PAs merely “assist” physicians. It is in the best interest of patients and the health care system for PAs to hold a professional title that ensures clarity about the work that PAs do.

For the sake of patients, we urge Bernard and her organization to stop continuously attacking other professions and focus on what really matters – providing access to safe, effective, equitable, high-quality care to all patients.

We are committed to patient-centered, coordinated health care, and we continue to work with like-minded physicians and other colleagues to make this a reality.

Ms. Orozco is president and chair of the board of directors for the American Academy of Physician Associates. Dr. Kapu is president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners.


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

This commentary was submitted as a rebuttal to “PA name change bad for patients and the profession.”

To the Editor:

At a time when COVID-19 cases are climbing and health care workers are struggling to meet the needs of our nation’s healthcare system, the commentary by Rebekah Bernard, MD, divides health care providers and demeans the education, experience, and value of physician associates (PA) and nurse practitioners (NP) in our opinion.

The ill timing of this negative message is equally matched by her mischaracterization of the PA title change and PA efforts to eliminate outdated administrative barriers, as well as her baseless attack on NP education and clinical training.

Let us be clear about one thing: What patients really want and deserve is access to high-quality care delivered by the health care provider of their choice. Patients deserve health care providers who are committed to modern, integrated, and coordinated health care delivery, led by professionals who are dedicated to ensuring that everyone is practicing to the full extent of their education, clinical experience, and scope of practice. Patients deserve health care providers who respect each other and work together to embrace solutions that will improve health care for the future.

Decades of research confirm the high quality of PA- and NP-delivered health care. The evidence is in, and it is irrefutable: PA- and NP-delivered care is associated with improved access to care, lower health care costs, and fewer avoidable emergency room visits.

With regard to the PA title change, the fact is this: Changing the profession’s title does not change what PAs do or affect a PA’s scope of practice. The new title – physician associate – directly addresses the common misperception that PAs merely “assist” physicians. It is in the best interest of patients and the health care system for PAs to hold a professional title that ensures clarity about the work that PAs do.

For the sake of patients, we urge Bernard and her organization to stop continuously attacking other professions and focus on what really matters – providing access to safe, effective, equitable, high-quality care to all patients.

We are committed to patient-centered, coordinated health care, and we continue to work with like-minded physicians and other colleagues to make this a reality.

Ms. Orozco is president and chair of the board of directors for the American Academy of Physician Associates. Dr. Kapu is president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners.


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