MDedge Pediatrics

A clinical prediction rule combining procalcitonin, absolute neutrophil count, and urinalysis effectively identified most febrile infants at low risk for serious bacterial infections, based on data from 702 individuals

The clinical prediction rule (CPR) described in 2019 in JAMA Pediatrics was developed by the Febrile Infant Working Group of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) to identify febrile infants at low risk for serious bacterial infections in order to reduce unnecessary procedures, antibiotics use, and hospitalization, according to April Clawson, MD, of Arkansas Children’s Hospital, Little Rock, and colleagues.

In a poster presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, the researchers conducted an external validation of the rule via a retrospective, observational study of febrile infants aged 60 days and younger who presented to an urban pediatric ED between October 2014 and June 2019. The study population included 702 infants with an average age of 36 days. Approximately 45% were female, and 60% were White. Fever was defined as 38° C or greater. Exclusion criteria were prematurity, receipt of antibiotics in the past 48 hours, presence of an indwelling medical device, and evidence of focal infection (not including otitis media); those who were critically ill at presentation or had a previous medical condition were excluded as well, the researchers said. A serious bacterial infection (SBI) was defined as a urinary tract infection (UTI), bacteremia, or bacterial meningitis.

Based on the CPR, a patient is considered low risk for an SBI if all the following criteria are met: normal urinalysis (defined as absence of leukocyte esterase, nitrite, and 5 or less white blood cells per high power field); an absolute neutrophil count of 4,090/mL or less; and procalcitonin of 1.71 ng/mL or less.

Overall, 62 infants (8.8%) were diagnosed with an SBI, similar to the 9.3% seen in the parent study of the CPR, Dr. Clawson said.

Of these, 42 had a UTI only (6%), 10 had bacteremia only (1.4%), and 1 had meningitis only (0.1%). Another five infants had UTI with bacteremia (0.7%), and four had bacteremia and meningitis (0.6%).

According to the CPR, 432 infants met criteria for low risk and 270 were considered high risk. A total of five infants who were classified as low risk had SBIs, including two with UTIs, two with bacteremia, and one with meningitis.

“The CPR derived and validated by Kupperman et al. had a decreased sensitivity for the patients in our study and missed some SBIs,” Dr. Clawson noted. “However, it had a strong negative predictive value, so it may still be a useful CPR.”

The sensitivity for the CPR in the parent study and the current study was 97.7 and 91.9, respectively; specificity was 60 and 66.7, respectively. The negative predictive values for the parent and current studies were 99.6 and 98.8, respectively, and the positive predictive values were 20.7 and 21.1.

The results support the potential of the CPR, but more external validation is needed, they said.
 

PECARN rule keeps it simple

“It has always been a challenge to identify infants with fever with serious bacterial infections when they are well-appearing,” Yashas Nathani, MD, of Oklahoma University, Oklahoma City, said in an interview. “The clinical prediction rule offers a simple, step-by-step approach for pediatricians and emergency medicine physicians to stratify infants in high or low risk categories for SBIs. However, as with everything, validation of protocols, guidelines and decision-making algorithms is extremely important, especially as more clinicians start to employ this CPR to their daily practice. This study objectively puts the CPR to the test and offers an independent external validation.

“Although this study had a lower sensitivity in identifying infants with SBI using the clinical prediction rule as compared to the original study, the robust validation of negative predictive value is extremely important and not surprising,” said Dr. Nathani. “The goal of this CPR is to identify infants with low-risk for SBI and the stated NPV helps clinicians in doing just that.”

Overall, “the clinical prediction rule is a fantastic resource for physicians to identify potentially sick infants with fever, especially the ones that appear well on initial evaluation,” said Dr. Nathani. However, “it is important to acknowledge that this is merely a guideline, and not an absolute rule. Clinicians also must remain cautious, as this rule does not incorporate the presence of viral pathogens as a factor.

“It is important to continue the scientific quest to refine our approach in identifying infants with serious bacterial infections when fever is the only presentation,” Dr. Nathani noted. “Additional research is needed to continue fine-tuning this CPR and the thresholds for procalcitonin and absolute neutrophil counts to improve the sensitivity and specificity.” Research also is needed to explore whether this CPR can be extended to incorporate viral testing, “as a large number of infants with fever have viral pathogens as the primary etiology,” he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Nathani had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A clinical prediction rule combining procalcitonin, absolute neutrophil count, and urinalysis effectively identified most febrile infants at low risk for serious bacterial infections, based on data from 702 individuals

The clinical prediction rule (CPR) described in 2019 in JAMA Pediatrics was developed by the Febrile Infant Working Group of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) to identify febrile infants at low risk for serious bacterial infections in order to reduce unnecessary procedures, antibiotics use, and hospitalization, according to April Clawson, MD, of Arkansas Children’s Hospital, Little Rock, and colleagues.

In a poster presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, the researchers conducted an external validation of the rule via a retrospective, observational study of febrile infants aged 60 days and younger who presented to an urban pediatric ED between October 2014 and June 2019. The study population included 702 infants with an average age of 36 days. Approximately 45% were female, and 60% were White. Fever was defined as 38° C or greater. Exclusion criteria were prematurity, receipt of antibiotics in the past 48 hours, presence of an indwelling medical device, and evidence of focal infection (not including otitis media); those who were critically ill at presentation or had a previous medical condition were excluded as well, the researchers said. A serious bacterial infection (SBI) was defined as a urinary tract infection (UTI), bacteremia, or bacterial meningitis.

Based on the CPR, a patient is considered low risk for an SBI if all the following criteria are met: normal urinalysis (defined as absence of leukocyte esterase, nitrite, and 5 or less white blood cells per high power field); an absolute neutrophil count of 4,090/mL or less; and procalcitonin of 1.71 ng/mL or less.

Overall, 62 infants (8.8%) were diagnosed with an SBI, similar to the 9.3% seen in the parent study of the CPR, Dr. Clawson said.

Of these, 42 had a UTI only (6%), 10 had bacteremia only (1.4%), and 1 had meningitis only (0.1%). Another five infants had UTI with bacteremia (0.7%), and four had bacteremia and meningitis (0.6%).

According to the CPR, 432 infants met criteria for low risk and 270 were considered high risk. A total of five infants who were classified as low risk had SBIs, including two with UTIs, two with bacteremia, and one with meningitis.

“The CPR derived and validated by Kupperman et al. had a decreased sensitivity for the patients in our study and missed some SBIs,” Dr. Clawson noted. “However, it had a strong negative predictive value, so it may still be a useful CPR.”

The sensitivity for the CPR in the parent study and the current study was 97.7 and 91.9, respectively; specificity was 60 and 66.7, respectively. The negative predictive values for the parent and current studies were 99.6 and 98.8, respectively, and the positive predictive values were 20.7 and 21.1.

The results support the potential of the CPR, but more external validation is needed, they said.
 

PECARN rule keeps it simple

“It has always been a challenge to identify infants with fever with serious bacterial infections when they are well-appearing,” Yashas Nathani, MD, of Oklahoma University, Oklahoma City, said in an interview. “The clinical prediction rule offers a simple, step-by-step approach for pediatricians and emergency medicine physicians to stratify infants in high or low risk categories for SBIs. However, as with everything, validation of protocols, guidelines and decision-making algorithms is extremely important, especially as more clinicians start to employ this CPR to their daily practice. This study objectively puts the CPR to the test and offers an independent external validation.

“Although this study had a lower sensitivity in identifying infants with SBI using the clinical prediction rule as compared to the original study, the robust validation of negative predictive value is extremely important and not surprising,” said Dr. Nathani. “The goal of this CPR is to identify infants with low-risk for SBI and the stated NPV helps clinicians in doing just that.”

Overall, “the clinical prediction rule is a fantastic resource for physicians to identify potentially sick infants with fever, especially the ones that appear well on initial evaluation,” said Dr. Nathani. However, “it is important to acknowledge that this is merely a guideline, and not an absolute rule. Clinicians also must remain cautious, as this rule does not incorporate the presence of viral pathogens as a factor.

“It is important to continue the scientific quest to refine our approach in identifying infants with serious bacterial infections when fever is the only presentation,” Dr. Nathani noted. “Additional research is needed to continue fine-tuning this CPR and the thresholds for procalcitonin and absolute neutrophil counts to improve the sensitivity and specificity.” Research also is needed to explore whether this CPR can be extended to incorporate viral testing, “as a large number of infants with fever have viral pathogens as the primary etiology,” he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Nathani had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A clinical prediction rule combining procalcitonin, absolute neutrophil count, and urinalysis effectively identified most febrile infants at low risk for serious bacterial infections, based on data from 702 individuals

The clinical prediction rule (CPR) described in 2019 in JAMA Pediatrics was developed by the Febrile Infant Working Group of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) to identify febrile infants at low risk for serious bacterial infections in order to reduce unnecessary procedures, antibiotics use, and hospitalization, according to April Clawson, MD, of Arkansas Children’s Hospital, Little Rock, and colleagues.

In a poster presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, the researchers conducted an external validation of the rule via a retrospective, observational study of febrile infants aged 60 days and younger who presented to an urban pediatric ED between October 2014 and June 2019. The study population included 702 infants with an average age of 36 days. Approximately 45% were female, and 60% were White. Fever was defined as 38° C or greater. Exclusion criteria were prematurity, receipt of antibiotics in the past 48 hours, presence of an indwelling medical device, and evidence of focal infection (not including otitis media); those who were critically ill at presentation or had a previous medical condition were excluded as well, the researchers said. A serious bacterial infection (SBI) was defined as a urinary tract infection (UTI), bacteremia, or bacterial meningitis.

Based on the CPR, a patient is considered low risk for an SBI if all the following criteria are met: normal urinalysis (defined as absence of leukocyte esterase, nitrite, and 5 or less white blood cells per high power field); an absolute neutrophil count of 4,090/mL or less; and procalcitonin of 1.71 ng/mL or less.

Overall, 62 infants (8.8%) were diagnosed with an SBI, similar to the 9.3% seen in the parent study of the CPR, Dr. Clawson said.

Of these, 42 had a UTI only (6%), 10 had bacteremia only (1.4%), and 1 had meningitis only (0.1%). Another five infants had UTI with bacteremia (0.7%), and four had bacteremia and meningitis (0.6%).

According to the CPR, 432 infants met criteria for low risk and 270 were considered high risk. A total of five infants who were classified as low risk had SBIs, including two with UTIs, two with bacteremia, and one with meningitis.

“The CPR derived and validated by Kupperman et al. had a decreased sensitivity for the patients in our study and missed some SBIs,” Dr. Clawson noted. “However, it had a strong negative predictive value, so it may still be a useful CPR.”

The sensitivity for the CPR in the parent study and the current study was 97.7 and 91.9, respectively; specificity was 60 and 66.7, respectively. The negative predictive values for the parent and current studies were 99.6 and 98.8, respectively, and the positive predictive values were 20.7 and 21.1.

The results support the potential of the CPR, but more external validation is needed, they said.
 

PECARN rule keeps it simple

“It has always been a challenge to identify infants with fever with serious bacterial infections when they are well-appearing,” Yashas Nathani, MD, of Oklahoma University, Oklahoma City, said in an interview. “The clinical prediction rule offers a simple, step-by-step approach for pediatricians and emergency medicine physicians to stratify infants in high or low risk categories for SBIs. However, as with everything, validation of protocols, guidelines and decision-making algorithms is extremely important, especially as more clinicians start to employ this CPR to their daily practice. This study objectively puts the CPR to the test and offers an independent external validation.

“Although this study had a lower sensitivity in identifying infants with SBI using the clinical prediction rule as compared to the original study, the robust validation of negative predictive value is extremely important and not surprising,” said Dr. Nathani. “The goal of this CPR is to identify infants with low-risk for SBI and the stated NPV helps clinicians in doing just that.”

Overall, “the clinical prediction rule is a fantastic resource for physicians to identify potentially sick infants with fever, especially the ones that appear well on initial evaluation,” said Dr. Nathani. However, “it is important to acknowledge that this is merely a guideline, and not an absolute rule. Clinicians also must remain cautious, as this rule does not incorporate the presence of viral pathogens as a factor.

“It is important to continue the scientific quest to refine our approach in identifying infants with serious bacterial infections when fever is the only presentation,” Dr. Nathani noted. “Additional research is needed to continue fine-tuning this CPR and the thresholds for procalcitonin and absolute neutrophil counts to improve the sensitivity and specificity.” Research also is needed to explore whether this CPR can be extended to incorporate viral testing, “as a large number of infants with fever have viral pathogens as the primary etiology,” he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Nathani had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Secukinumab (Cosentyx), an interleukin-17A inhibitor, is effective and reasonably well tolerated for treatment of enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA) and juvenile psoriatic arthritis (JPsA) in children and adolescents, according to a phase 3 trial presented at a late breaking abstracts session of the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

On the primary outcome of time to flare, the curves for secukinumab and placebo separated almost immediately, with fewer than half the number of flares occurring in the experimental arm over the course of the study, according to Nicolino Ruperto, MD, senior research scientist at IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini in Genoa, Italy.

The trial, called JUNIPERA, was conducted over 2 years and included an open-label treatment period (TP1) and then a randomized, placebo-controlled comparison (TP2). In TP1, 86 children were initiated on open-label secukinumab administered subcutaneously on weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 12. The dose was 75 mg for children less than 50 kg and 150 kg for those heavier.
 

Average patient age was 13.1 years

Of these 86 children, 52 had ERA and 34 had JPsA. Disease duration of at least 6 months was required for entry. Patients up to the age of 18 years were permitted to enroll. The average age was 13.1 years. Most patients, two-thirds of whom were male, had received an immunomodulator prior to study entry.

At the end of TP1, 69.9% of patients had achieved 70% improvement in the Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis American College of Rheumatology joint score (JIA ACR70). The 90.4% of patients who achieved JIA ACR30 were invited to enroll in TP2. A total of 75 patients did so.

At the end of TP2, response rates strongly favored secukinumab over placebo for JIA ACR30 (89.2% vs. 64.9%; P = .014) and JIA ACR70 (67.7% vs. 43.2%; P = .042). Higher but not statistically significant differences in response rates were seen for secukinumab over placebo for JIA ACR50 (78.4% vs. 62.2%; P = .152), JIA ACR90 (51.4% vs. 40.5%; P = .431) and JIA ACR100 (43.2% vs. 37.8%; P = .755).

During TP2, there were 10 flares in the group randomized to secukinumab versus 21 flares in the placebo group, translating by hazard ratio (HR) into a 72% risk reduction (HR, 0.28; P < .001).

Side effects similar to those in adults

The types and rates of serious adverse events were similar to those reported previously in adult patients, according to Dr. Ruperto. Although the rate of serious adverse events (14.6% vs. 10.6%) was only moderately higher in the experimental arm, more patients randomized to secukinumab than placebo discontinued therapy (13.2% vs. 6.3%) before the end of follow-up.

The side effects that occurred more commonly on secukinumab included gastrointestinal complaints, such as diarrhea (22.9% vs. 15.8%). Other adverse events occurring in more than 10% of patients included headache and nasopharyngitis, but most side effects were mild and resolved.

Although the proportion of patients with flare increased over time in both groups, Dr. Ruperto reported that protection against flares and relative improvement in clinical markers of disease activity relative to placebo “were sustained out to 2 years of follow-up.”

The submission of these data to regulatory agencies is anticipated. If secukinumab is given an indication for these forms of arthritis, it will join an indication for plaque psoriasis in children that was granted just a few days before these data were presented. The psoriasis indication is the only current use approved for children in the United States.
 

More biologics needed for JPsA

Additional biologics will be helpful for children with arthritis who are poorly controlled on available treatments, according to Natasha M. Ruth, MD, director of the division of pediatric rheumatology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Dr. Ruth was senior author of a case study published 2 years ago in which secukinumab was used to control psoriatic arthritis and nail manifestations of psoriasis.

“It was a girl who had already failed to improve adequately to TNF inhibitors,” reported Dr. Ruth, who had said the child and her parent were very concerned about the nail appearance.

“The nail involvement completely resolved, so it was a very good result in a difficult situation,” Dr. Ruth explained. She said that the decision to try secukinumab was made collaboratively in a clinic in which dermatologists and rheumatologists at her institution work together on difficult cases.

“There is a need for more biologics with different mechanisms of action,” Dr. Ruth said. Based on her experience, secukinumab could be an important addition to treatment options.

Dr. Ruperto reported having financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, which provided financial support for this trial. Many coauthors had financial relationships with multiple companies, including Novartis, and some were employees of the company. Dr. Ruth reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

Secukinumab (Cosentyx), an interleukin-17A inhibitor, is effective and reasonably well tolerated for treatment of enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA) and juvenile psoriatic arthritis (JPsA) in children and adolescents, according to a phase 3 trial presented at a late breaking abstracts session of the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

On the primary outcome of time to flare, the curves for secukinumab and placebo separated almost immediately, with fewer than half the number of flares occurring in the experimental arm over the course of the study, according to Nicolino Ruperto, MD, senior research scientist at IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini in Genoa, Italy.

The trial, called JUNIPERA, was conducted over 2 years and included an open-label treatment period (TP1) and then a randomized, placebo-controlled comparison (TP2). In TP1, 86 children were initiated on open-label secukinumab administered subcutaneously on weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 12. The dose was 75 mg for children less than 50 kg and 150 kg for those heavier.
 

Average patient age was 13.1 years

Of these 86 children, 52 had ERA and 34 had JPsA. Disease duration of at least 6 months was required for entry. Patients up to the age of 18 years were permitted to enroll. The average age was 13.1 years. Most patients, two-thirds of whom were male, had received an immunomodulator prior to study entry.

At the end of TP1, 69.9% of patients had achieved 70% improvement in the Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis American College of Rheumatology joint score (JIA ACR70). The 90.4% of patients who achieved JIA ACR30 were invited to enroll in TP2. A total of 75 patients did so.

At the end of TP2, response rates strongly favored secukinumab over placebo for JIA ACR30 (89.2% vs. 64.9%; P = .014) and JIA ACR70 (67.7% vs. 43.2%; P = .042). Higher but not statistically significant differences in response rates were seen for secukinumab over placebo for JIA ACR50 (78.4% vs. 62.2%; P = .152), JIA ACR90 (51.4% vs. 40.5%; P = .431) and JIA ACR100 (43.2% vs. 37.8%; P = .755).

During TP2, there were 10 flares in the group randomized to secukinumab versus 21 flares in the placebo group, translating by hazard ratio (HR) into a 72% risk reduction (HR, 0.28; P < .001).

Side effects similar to those in adults

The types and rates of serious adverse events were similar to those reported previously in adult patients, according to Dr. Ruperto. Although the rate of serious adverse events (14.6% vs. 10.6%) was only moderately higher in the experimental arm, more patients randomized to secukinumab than placebo discontinued therapy (13.2% vs. 6.3%) before the end of follow-up.

The side effects that occurred more commonly on secukinumab included gastrointestinal complaints, such as diarrhea (22.9% vs. 15.8%). Other adverse events occurring in more than 10% of patients included headache and nasopharyngitis, but most side effects were mild and resolved.

Although the proportion of patients with flare increased over time in both groups, Dr. Ruperto reported that protection against flares and relative improvement in clinical markers of disease activity relative to placebo “were sustained out to 2 years of follow-up.”

The submission of these data to regulatory agencies is anticipated. If secukinumab is given an indication for these forms of arthritis, it will join an indication for plaque psoriasis in children that was granted just a few days before these data were presented. The psoriasis indication is the only current use approved for children in the United States.
 

More biologics needed for JPsA

Additional biologics will be helpful for children with arthritis who are poorly controlled on available treatments, according to Natasha M. Ruth, MD, director of the division of pediatric rheumatology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Dr. Ruth was senior author of a case study published 2 years ago in which secukinumab was used to control psoriatic arthritis and nail manifestations of psoriasis.

“It was a girl who had already failed to improve adequately to TNF inhibitors,” reported Dr. Ruth, who had said the child and her parent were very concerned about the nail appearance.

“The nail involvement completely resolved, so it was a very good result in a difficult situation,” Dr. Ruth explained. She said that the decision to try secukinumab was made collaboratively in a clinic in which dermatologists and rheumatologists at her institution work together on difficult cases.

“There is a need for more biologics with different mechanisms of action,” Dr. Ruth said. Based on her experience, secukinumab could be an important addition to treatment options.

Dr. Ruperto reported having financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, which provided financial support for this trial. Many coauthors had financial relationships with multiple companies, including Novartis, and some were employees of the company. Dr. Ruth reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

Secukinumab (Cosentyx), an interleukin-17A inhibitor, is effective and reasonably well tolerated for treatment of enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA) and juvenile psoriatic arthritis (JPsA) in children and adolescents, according to a phase 3 trial presented at a late breaking abstracts session of the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

On the primary outcome of time to flare, the curves for secukinumab and placebo separated almost immediately, with fewer than half the number of flares occurring in the experimental arm over the course of the study, according to Nicolino Ruperto, MD, senior research scientist at IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini in Genoa, Italy.

The trial, called JUNIPERA, was conducted over 2 years and included an open-label treatment period (TP1) and then a randomized, placebo-controlled comparison (TP2). In TP1, 86 children were initiated on open-label secukinumab administered subcutaneously on weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 12. The dose was 75 mg for children less than 50 kg and 150 kg for those heavier.
 

Average patient age was 13.1 years

Of these 86 children, 52 had ERA and 34 had JPsA. Disease duration of at least 6 months was required for entry. Patients up to the age of 18 years were permitted to enroll. The average age was 13.1 years. Most patients, two-thirds of whom were male, had received an immunomodulator prior to study entry.

At the end of TP1, 69.9% of patients had achieved 70% improvement in the Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis American College of Rheumatology joint score (JIA ACR70). The 90.4% of patients who achieved JIA ACR30 were invited to enroll in TP2. A total of 75 patients did so.

At the end of TP2, response rates strongly favored secukinumab over placebo for JIA ACR30 (89.2% vs. 64.9%; P = .014) and JIA ACR70 (67.7% vs. 43.2%; P = .042). Higher but not statistically significant differences in response rates were seen for secukinumab over placebo for JIA ACR50 (78.4% vs. 62.2%; P = .152), JIA ACR90 (51.4% vs. 40.5%; P = .431) and JIA ACR100 (43.2% vs. 37.8%; P = .755).

During TP2, there were 10 flares in the group randomized to secukinumab versus 21 flares in the placebo group, translating by hazard ratio (HR) into a 72% risk reduction (HR, 0.28; P < .001).

Side effects similar to those in adults

The types and rates of serious adverse events were similar to those reported previously in adult patients, according to Dr. Ruperto. Although the rate of serious adverse events (14.6% vs. 10.6%) was only moderately higher in the experimental arm, more patients randomized to secukinumab than placebo discontinued therapy (13.2% vs. 6.3%) before the end of follow-up.

The side effects that occurred more commonly on secukinumab included gastrointestinal complaints, such as diarrhea (22.9% vs. 15.8%). Other adverse events occurring in more than 10% of patients included headache and nasopharyngitis, but most side effects were mild and resolved.

Although the proportion of patients with flare increased over time in both groups, Dr. Ruperto reported that protection against flares and relative improvement in clinical markers of disease activity relative to placebo “were sustained out to 2 years of follow-up.”

The submission of these data to regulatory agencies is anticipated. If secukinumab is given an indication for these forms of arthritis, it will join an indication for plaque psoriasis in children that was granted just a few days before these data were presented. The psoriasis indication is the only current use approved for children in the United States.
 

More biologics needed for JPsA

Additional biologics will be helpful for children with arthritis who are poorly controlled on available treatments, according to Natasha M. Ruth, MD, director of the division of pediatric rheumatology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Dr. Ruth was senior author of a case study published 2 years ago in which secukinumab was used to control psoriatic arthritis and nail manifestations of psoriasis.

“It was a girl who had already failed to improve adequately to TNF inhibitors,” reported Dr. Ruth, who had said the child and her parent were very concerned about the nail appearance.

“The nail involvement completely resolved, so it was a very good result in a difficult situation,” Dr. Ruth explained. She said that the decision to try secukinumab was made collaboratively in a clinic in which dermatologists and rheumatologists at her institution work together on difficult cases.

“There is a need for more biologics with different mechanisms of action,” Dr. Ruth said. Based on her experience, secukinumab could be an important addition to treatment options.

Dr. Ruperto reported having financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, which provided financial support for this trial. Many coauthors had financial relationships with multiple companies, including Novartis, and some were employees of the company. Dr. Ruth reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

Even as the number of new COVID-19 cases continues to drop, the United States reached the 4-million mark for infected children, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The total number of children with COVID-19 was 4,008,572 as of June 10 after just under 14,500 new cases were reported over the preceding week. That weekly total, the lowest since June of 2020, comes from 49 states (excluding N.Y.), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Children represent 14.1% of all COVID-19 cases since the beginning of the pandemic, while the corresponding figure for the week ending June 10 was 19.0%. That weekly proportion of cases among children had been rising pretty steadily through the winter and early spring, but the situation has become much more volatile over the last month, the AAP/CHA data show.

Use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in children aged 16-17 years, of course, didn’t begin until April, and the vaccine wasn’t authorized for children aged 12-15 years until mid-May. The Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines have not received such authorization yet, but Moderna is in the process of seeking an emergency-use recommendation from the Food and Drug Administration.

In the younger group of children who are currently eligible, completion of the vaccine regimen took a big jump in the week ending June 14, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The cumulative share of those aged 12-15 years who had received a second dose jumped from 4.1% on June 7 to 11.4% on June 14, with comparable numbers for 16- and 17-year-olds coming in at 26.4% and 29.1%.

Activity over just the last 14 days, however, shows a slight decrease in children aged 12-15 getting a first dose: For just the 2 weeks ending June 7, 17.9% of all children in the age group initiated a first dose, but for the 14 days ending June 14, only 17.1% of the age group did so, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker site.

For children aged 16-17 years – of whom less than 30% have reached full vaccination – activity seems to have stagnated: 4.8% of all 16- to 17-year-olds initiated a first vaccination during the 14 days ending June 7, compared with 4.7% who did so during the 14 days ending June 14, the CDC reported.

Older age groups with higher completion rates are still producing greater vaccine initiation. As of June 14, those aged 25-39 years had a completion rate of 41.9% and 24.0% of the age group had received a first dose in the previous 2 weeks, while 61.4% of those aged 50-64 were fully vaccinated, and 18.0% had gotten their first dose, the CDC data indicate.

[email protected]

Even as the number of new COVID-19 cases continues to drop, the United States reached the 4-million mark for infected children, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The total number of children with COVID-19 was 4,008,572 as of June 10 after just under 14,500 new cases were reported over the preceding week. That weekly total, the lowest since June of 2020, comes from 49 states (excluding N.Y.), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Children represent 14.1% of all COVID-19 cases since the beginning of the pandemic, while the corresponding figure for the week ending June 10 was 19.0%. That weekly proportion of cases among children had been rising pretty steadily through the winter and early spring, but the situation has become much more volatile over the last month, the AAP/CHA data show.

Use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in children aged 16-17 years, of course, didn’t begin until April, and the vaccine wasn’t authorized for children aged 12-15 years until mid-May. The Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines have not received such authorization yet, but Moderna is in the process of seeking an emergency-use recommendation from the Food and Drug Administration.

In the younger group of children who are currently eligible, completion of the vaccine regimen took a big jump in the week ending June 14, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The cumulative share of those aged 12-15 years who had received a second dose jumped from 4.1% on June 7 to 11.4% on June 14, with comparable numbers for 16- and 17-year-olds coming in at 26.4% and 29.1%.

Activity over just the last 14 days, however, shows a slight decrease in children aged 12-15 getting a first dose: For just the 2 weeks ending June 7, 17.9% of all children in the age group initiated a first dose, but for the 14 days ending June 14, only 17.1% of the age group did so, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker site.

For children aged 16-17 years – of whom less than 30% have reached full vaccination – activity seems to have stagnated: 4.8% of all 16- to 17-year-olds initiated a first vaccination during the 14 days ending June 7, compared with 4.7% who did so during the 14 days ending June 14, the CDC reported.

Older age groups with higher completion rates are still producing greater vaccine initiation. As of June 14, those aged 25-39 years had a completion rate of 41.9% and 24.0% of the age group had received a first dose in the previous 2 weeks, while 61.4% of those aged 50-64 were fully vaccinated, and 18.0% had gotten their first dose, the CDC data indicate.

[email protected]

Even as the number of new COVID-19 cases continues to drop, the United States reached the 4-million mark for infected children, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The total number of children with COVID-19 was 4,008,572 as of June 10 after just under 14,500 new cases were reported over the preceding week. That weekly total, the lowest since June of 2020, comes from 49 states (excluding N.Y.), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Children represent 14.1% of all COVID-19 cases since the beginning of the pandemic, while the corresponding figure for the week ending June 10 was 19.0%. That weekly proportion of cases among children had been rising pretty steadily through the winter and early spring, but the situation has become much more volatile over the last month, the AAP/CHA data show.

Use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in children aged 16-17 years, of course, didn’t begin until April, and the vaccine wasn’t authorized for children aged 12-15 years until mid-May. The Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines have not received such authorization yet, but Moderna is in the process of seeking an emergency-use recommendation from the Food and Drug Administration.

In the younger group of children who are currently eligible, completion of the vaccine regimen took a big jump in the week ending June 14, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The cumulative share of those aged 12-15 years who had received a second dose jumped from 4.1% on June 7 to 11.4% on June 14, with comparable numbers for 16- and 17-year-olds coming in at 26.4% and 29.1%.

Activity over just the last 14 days, however, shows a slight decrease in children aged 12-15 getting a first dose: For just the 2 weeks ending June 7, 17.9% of all children in the age group initiated a first dose, but for the 14 days ending June 14, only 17.1% of the age group did so, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker site.

For children aged 16-17 years – of whom less than 30% have reached full vaccination – activity seems to have stagnated: 4.8% of all 16- to 17-year-olds initiated a first vaccination during the 14 days ending June 7, compared with 4.7% who did so during the 14 days ending June 14, the CDC reported.

Older age groups with higher completion rates are still producing greater vaccine initiation. As of June 14, those aged 25-39 years had a completion rate of 41.9% and 24.0% of the age group had received a first dose in the previous 2 weeks, while 61.4% of those aged 50-64 were fully vaccinated, and 18.0% had gotten their first dose, the CDC data indicate.

[email protected]

For physicians who are just starting out or thinking about moving, the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” could be the land of opportunity, according to a recent Medscape analysis.

In a ranking of the 50 states, Minnesota “claimed top marks for livability, low incidence of adverse actions against doctors, and the performance of its health system,” Shelly Reese wrote in Medscape’s “Best & Worst Places to Practice 2021.”

Minnesota is below average where it’s good to be below average – share of physicians reporting burnout and/or depression – but above average in the share of physicians who say they’re “very happy” outside of work, Medscape said in the annual report.

Second on this year’s list is Wisconsin, which benefits from low levels of malpractice payouts and adverse actions and a high level of livability. Third place went to Washington (called the most livable state in the country by U.S. News and World Report), fourth to Colorado (physicians happy at and outside of work, high retention rate for residents), and fifth to Utah (low crime rate, high quality of life), Medscape said.

At the bottom of the list for 2021 is West Virginia, where physicians “may confront a bevy of challenges” in the form of low livability, a high rate of adverse actions, and relatively high malpractice payouts, Ms. Reese noted in the report.

State number 49 is Louisiana, where livability is low, malpractice payouts are high, and more than half of physicians say that they’re burned out and/or depressed. New Mexico is 48th (very high rate of adverse actions, poor resident retention), Nevada is 47th (low marks for avoidable hospital use and disparity in care), and Rhode Island is 46th (high malpractice payouts, low physician compensation), Medscape said.

Continuing with the group-of-five theme, America’s three most populous states finished in the top half of the ranking – California 16th, Texas 11th, and Florida 21st – but New York and Pennsylvania, numbers four and five by population size, did not.

The rankings are based on states’ performance in 10 different measures, three of which were sourced from Medscape surveys – happiness at work, happiness outside of work, and burnout/depression – and seven from other organizations: adverse actions against physicians, malpractice payouts, compensation (adjusted for cost of living), overall health, health system performance, overall livability, resident retention.
 

[email protected]

For physicians who are just starting out or thinking about moving, the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” could be the land of opportunity, according to a recent Medscape analysis.

In a ranking of the 50 states, Minnesota “claimed top marks for livability, low incidence of adverse actions against doctors, and the performance of its health system,” Shelly Reese wrote in Medscape’s “Best & Worst Places to Practice 2021.”

Minnesota is below average where it’s good to be below average – share of physicians reporting burnout and/or depression – but above average in the share of physicians who say they’re “very happy” outside of work, Medscape said in the annual report.

Second on this year’s list is Wisconsin, which benefits from low levels of malpractice payouts and adverse actions and a high level of livability. Third place went to Washington (called the most livable state in the country by U.S. News and World Report), fourth to Colorado (physicians happy at and outside of work, high retention rate for residents), and fifth to Utah (low crime rate, high quality of life), Medscape said.

At the bottom of the list for 2021 is West Virginia, where physicians “may confront a bevy of challenges” in the form of low livability, a high rate of adverse actions, and relatively high malpractice payouts, Ms. Reese noted in the report.

State number 49 is Louisiana, where livability is low, malpractice payouts are high, and more than half of physicians say that they’re burned out and/or depressed. New Mexico is 48th (very high rate of adverse actions, poor resident retention), Nevada is 47th (low marks for avoidable hospital use and disparity in care), and Rhode Island is 46th (high malpractice payouts, low physician compensation), Medscape said.

Continuing with the group-of-five theme, America’s three most populous states finished in the top half of the ranking – California 16th, Texas 11th, and Florida 21st – but New York and Pennsylvania, numbers four and five by population size, did not.

The rankings are based on states’ performance in 10 different measures, three of which were sourced from Medscape surveys – happiness at work, happiness outside of work, and burnout/depression – and seven from other organizations: adverse actions against physicians, malpractice payouts, compensation (adjusted for cost of living), overall health, health system performance, overall livability, resident retention.
 

[email protected]

For physicians who are just starting out or thinking about moving, the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” could be the land of opportunity, according to a recent Medscape analysis.

In a ranking of the 50 states, Minnesota “claimed top marks for livability, low incidence of adverse actions against doctors, and the performance of its health system,” Shelly Reese wrote in Medscape’s “Best & Worst Places to Practice 2021.”

Minnesota is below average where it’s good to be below average – share of physicians reporting burnout and/or depression – but above average in the share of physicians who say they’re “very happy” outside of work, Medscape said in the annual report.

Second on this year’s list is Wisconsin, which benefits from low levels of malpractice payouts and adverse actions and a high level of livability. Third place went to Washington (called the most livable state in the country by U.S. News and World Report), fourth to Colorado (physicians happy at and outside of work, high retention rate for residents), and fifth to Utah (low crime rate, high quality of life), Medscape said.

At the bottom of the list for 2021 is West Virginia, where physicians “may confront a bevy of challenges” in the form of low livability, a high rate of adverse actions, and relatively high malpractice payouts, Ms. Reese noted in the report.

State number 49 is Louisiana, where livability is low, malpractice payouts are high, and more than half of physicians say that they’re burned out and/or depressed. New Mexico is 48th (very high rate of adverse actions, poor resident retention), Nevada is 47th (low marks for avoidable hospital use and disparity in care), and Rhode Island is 46th (high malpractice payouts, low physician compensation), Medscape said.

Continuing with the group-of-five theme, America’s three most populous states finished in the top half of the ranking – California 16th, Texas 11th, and Florida 21st – but New York and Pennsylvania, numbers four and five by population size, did not.

The rankings are based on states’ performance in 10 different measures, three of which were sourced from Medscape surveys – happiness at work, happiness outside of work, and burnout/depression – and seven from other organizations: adverse actions against physicians, malpractice payouts, compensation (adjusted for cost of living), overall health, health system performance, overall livability, resident retention.
 

[email protected]

For the eighth consecutive year, Boston Children’s Hospital has captured the no. 1 spot in the national honor roll of U.S. News & World Report’s Best Children’s Hospitals.

Released June 15, the 2021-2022 rankings, which acknowledge 50 U.S. centers for delivering exceptional care in several specialties, also give the Massachusetts hospital the top spot in 4 of 10 pediatric specialties assessed: nephrology, neurology and neurosurgery, pulmonology and lung surgery, and urology.

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia retains second spot in the annually updated list, and Texas Children’s Hospital, in Houston, moves up a rung to third place, bumping Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center from third to fourth place. Children’s Hospital Los Angeles comes in at no. 5.

The remaining top 10 placements, in descending order, are as follows:

Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora; Children’s National Hospital in Washington; Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio; UPMS Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh; and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford (Calif.).
 

New regional rankings

This year’s edition offers something new, adding rankings within states and multiple-state rankings within seven regions to facilitate choice. “The Best Children’s Hospitals rankings have always highlighted hospitals that excel in specialized care,” said Ben Harder, chief of health analysis and managing editor at U.S. News, in a press release. “Now, this year’s new state and regional rankings can help families identify conveniently located hospitals capable of meeting their child’s needs. As the pandemic continues to affect travel, finding high-quality care close to home has never been more important.”

Across the seven regions, the top-ranked institutions are as follows:

• Mid-Atlantic – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
• Midwest – Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
• New England – Boston Children’s Hospital.
• Pacific – Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.
• Rocky Mountains – Children’s Hospital Colorado.
• Southeast – Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital of Vanderbilt, in Nashville, Tenn.
• Southwest – Texas Children’s Hospital.

Specialties

Boston Children’s not only topped the overall list but also led in four specialties. For the other six specialties that were ranked, the top hospitals on the honor roll are as follows:

• Cancer – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
• Cardiology and heart surgery – Texas Children’s Hospital.
• Diabetes and endocrinology – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
• Gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery – Children’s Hospital Colorado.
• Neonatology – Children’s National Hospital.
• Orthopedics – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

For the past 15 years, the objective of the rankings has been to offer a starting point for parents in making decisions about the best place to take very sick children for high-quality care. The editors of the rankings acknowledge that considerations of travel costs and insurance coverage are other factors to consider.
 

Helpful for families

The rankings are helpful for families, according to Joe W. St. Geme, III, MD, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s physician-in-chief and chair of its department of pediatrics. “Some parents, especially those coming from outside an area, find them useful when deciding on care away from home,” he told this news organization. “Most types of pediatric care are available in the community, but sometimes a child has an unusual disease or complex disease for which local care is not available.”

Dr. St. Geme said the new regional rankings may be useful in helping parents decide where to bring a child for care that is closer to where they live.

A top ranking from U.S. News is just one indication of a hospital›s overall performance, according to Angela Lorts, MD, MBA, director of the Ventricular Assist Device Program, at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“Parents seeking care for their child should use the data to ask questions and understand the limitations,” she told this news organization. “Rankings are only based on a small subset of the children we care for. Many of the metrics may not pertain to their child and may not reflect the care they will receive.”

In her view, ranking will not give parents all the information they need about medical care and outcomes for specific conditions.
 

Hospital reaction

Hospitals can use the rankings to target improvements, says Dr. St. Geme. “These rankings can provide an opportunity for some benchmarking, to see what other institutions are doing and how they’re able to deliver care. They can serve as a source of ideas and can influence planning,” he said.

He cautioned that the data are not as complete as they could be. “A number of services are not included, and we try to keep that in mind,” he said.

Rankings may also affect recruitment, Dr. St. Geme added, because higher-ranked institutions may find it easier to attract sought-after clinicians and investigators in needed areas.

Another sphere of influence is philanthropy and fund raising. “People are much more likely to consider making both small and large donations to a high-ranked institution,” said J. Howard Smart, MD, chair of pediatrics at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group and chair-elect of the physician leadership council at Sharp Mary Birch Hospital for Women and Newborns in San Diego.

Dr. St. Geme agrees. “Philanthropists are interested in making investments where they feel they’re a sure bet, and rankings may indicate a sure bet. But their impact on government funding and grant support is probably less.”

Ultimately, however, some families may not have lot of choice in where to go when their children are sick, Dr. Smart said. “And people probably don’t choose a location to live in based on nearby children’s hospitals the way they do for schools,” he said.

What about hospitals that continue to rank much lower on the 50-institution list – excellent though they must be to make it onto the honor roll. “To be on the list but not to have risen in rank in recent years might be a disappointment,” said Dr. St. Geme. “But it might also motivate a hospital to think about making internal investments in order to strengthen a particular service. And it may motivate nonranked hospitals to improve care in order to break into the list.”

Dr. Lorts points out that the annual survey process requires hospitals to track the clinical outcomes of a subset of patients, which may lead to improvement in these areas. It also requires data collection on structure and process, which drives needs assessments of select hospital areas. “But ideally, all hospitals would be tracking important outcomes, benchmarking to peer hospitals, and improving where needed without the U.S. News incentive,” she said.

This year’s data, compiled by research and consulting firm RTI International, derive from feedback on more than 1,200 questions provided by 118 responding institutions. Details on each hospital on the list and the methodology used in the analysis are available on U.S. News & World Report’s website.

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

For the eighth consecutive year, Boston Children’s Hospital has captured the no. 1 spot in the national honor roll of U.S. News & World Report’s Best Children’s Hospitals.

Released June 15, the 2021-2022 rankings, which acknowledge 50 U.S. centers for delivering exceptional care in several specialties, also give the Massachusetts hospital the top spot in 4 of 10 pediatric specialties assessed: nephrology, neurology and neurosurgery, pulmonology and lung surgery, and urology.

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia retains second spot in the annually updated list, and Texas Children’s Hospital, in Houston, moves up a rung to third place, bumping Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center from third to fourth place. Children’s Hospital Los Angeles comes in at no. 5.

The remaining top 10 placements, in descending order, are as follows:

Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora; Children’s National Hospital in Washington; Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio; UPMS Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh; and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford (Calif.).
 

New regional rankings

This year’s edition offers something new, adding rankings within states and multiple-state rankings within seven regions to facilitate choice. “The Best Children’s Hospitals rankings have always highlighted hospitals that excel in specialized care,” said Ben Harder, chief of health analysis and managing editor at U.S. News, in a press release. “Now, this year’s new state and regional rankings can help families identify conveniently located hospitals capable of meeting their child’s needs. As the pandemic continues to affect travel, finding high-quality care close to home has never been more important.”

Across the seven regions, the top-ranked institutions are as follows:

• Mid-Atlantic – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
• Midwest – Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
• New England – Boston Children’s Hospital.
• Pacific – Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.
• Rocky Mountains – Children’s Hospital Colorado.
• Southeast – Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital of Vanderbilt, in Nashville, Tenn.
• Southwest – Texas Children’s Hospital.

Specialties

Boston Children’s not only topped the overall list but also led in four specialties. For the other six specialties that were ranked, the top hospitals on the honor roll are as follows:

• Cancer – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
• Cardiology and heart surgery – Texas Children’s Hospital.
• Diabetes and endocrinology – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
• Gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery – Children’s Hospital Colorado.
• Neonatology – Children’s National Hospital.
• Orthopedics – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

For the past 15 years, the objective of the rankings has been to offer a starting point for parents in making decisions about the best place to take very sick children for high-quality care. The editors of the rankings acknowledge that considerations of travel costs and insurance coverage are other factors to consider.
 

Helpful for families

The rankings are helpful for families, according to Joe W. St. Geme, III, MD, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s physician-in-chief and chair of its department of pediatrics. “Some parents, especially those coming from outside an area, find them useful when deciding on care away from home,” he told this news organization. “Most types of pediatric care are available in the community, but sometimes a child has an unusual disease or complex disease for which local care is not available.”

Dr. St. Geme said the new regional rankings may be useful in helping parents decide where to bring a child for care that is closer to where they live.

A top ranking from U.S. News is just one indication of a hospital›s overall performance, according to Angela Lorts, MD, MBA, director of the Ventricular Assist Device Program, at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“Parents seeking care for their child should use the data to ask questions and understand the limitations,” she told this news organization. “Rankings are only based on a small subset of the children we care for. Many of the metrics may not pertain to their child and may not reflect the care they will receive.”

In her view, ranking will not give parents all the information they need about medical care and outcomes for specific conditions.
 

Hospital reaction

Hospitals can use the rankings to target improvements, says Dr. St. Geme. “These rankings can provide an opportunity for some benchmarking, to see what other institutions are doing and how they’re able to deliver care. They can serve as a source of ideas and can influence planning,” he said.

He cautioned that the data are not as complete as they could be. “A number of services are not included, and we try to keep that in mind,” he said.

Rankings may also affect recruitment, Dr. St. Geme added, because higher-ranked institutions may find it easier to attract sought-after clinicians and investigators in needed areas.

Another sphere of influence is philanthropy and fund raising. “People are much more likely to consider making both small and large donations to a high-ranked institution,” said J. Howard Smart, MD, chair of pediatrics at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group and chair-elect of the physician leadership council at Sharp Mary Birch Hospital for Women and Newborns in San Diego.

Dr. St. Geme agrees. “Philanthropists are interested in making investments where they feel they’re a sure bet, and rankings may indicate a sure bet. But their impact on government funding and grant support is probably less.”

Ultimately, however, some families may not have lot of choice in where to go when their children are sick, Dr. Smart said. “And people probably don’t choose a location to live in based on nearby children’s hospitals the way they do for schools,” he said.

What about hospitals that continue to rank much lower on the 50-institution list – excellent though they must be to make it onto the honor roll. “To be on the list but not to have risen in rank in recent years might be a disappointment,” said Dr. St. Geme. “But it might also motivate a hospital to think about making internal investments in order to strengthen a particular service. And it may motivate nonranked hospitals to improve care in order to break into the list.”

Dr. Lorts points out that the annual survey process requires hospitals to track the clinical outcomes of a subset of patients, which may lead to improvement in these areas. It also requires data collection on structure and process, which drives needs assessments of select hospital areas. “But ideally, all hospitals would be tracking important outcomes, benchmarking to peer hospitals, and improving where needed without the U.S. News incentive,” she said.

This year’s data, compiled by research and consulting firm RTI International, derive from feedback on more than 1,200 questions provided by 118 responding institutions. Details on each hospital on the list and the methodology used in the analysis are available on U.S. News & World Report’s website.

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

For the eighth consecutive year, Boston Children’s Hospital has captured the no. 1 spot in the national honor roll of U.S. News & World Report’s Best Children’s Hospitals.

Released June 15, the 2021-2022 rankings, which acknowledge 50 U.S. centers for delivering exceptional care in several specialties, also give the Massachusetts hospital the top spot in 4 of 10 pediatric specialties assessed: nephrology, neurology and neurosurgery, pulmonology and lung surgery, and urology.

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia retains second spot in the annually updated list, and Texas Children’s Hospital, in Houston, moves up a rung to third place, bumping Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center from third to fourth place. Children’s Hospital Los Angeles comes in at no. 5.

The remaining top 10 placements, in descending order, are as follows:

Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora; Children’s National Hospital in Washington; Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio; UPMS Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh; and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford (Calif.).
 

New regional rankings

This year’s edition offers something new, adding rankings within states and multiple-state rankings within seven regions to facilitate choice. “The Best Children’s Hospitals rankings have always highlighted hospitals that excel in specialized care,” said Ben Harder, chief of health analysis and managing editor at U.S. News, in a press release. “Now, this year’s new state and regional rankings can help families identify conveniently located hospitals capable of meeting their child’s needs. As the pandemic continues to affect travel, finding high-quality care close to home has never been more important.”

Across the seven regions, the top-ranked institutions are as follows:

• Mid-Atlantic – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
• Midwest – Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
• New England – Boston Children’s Hospital.
• Pacific – Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.
• Rocky Mountains – Children’s Hospital Colorado.
• Southeast – Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital of Vanderbilt, in Nashville, Tenn.
• Southwest – Texas Children’s Hospital.

Specialties

Boston Children’s not only topped the overall list but also led in four specialties. For the other six specialties that were ranked, the top hospitals on the honor roll are as follows:

• Cancer – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
• Cardiology and heart surgery – Texas Children’s Hospital.
• Diabetes and endocrinology – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
• Gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery – Children’s Hospital Colorado.
• Neonatology – Children’s National Hospital.
• Orthopedics – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

For the past 15 years, the objective of the rankings has been to offer a starting point for parents in making decisions about the best place to take very sick children for high-quality care. The editors of the rankings acknowledge that considerations of travel costs and insurance coverage are other factors to consider.
 

Helpful for families

The rankings are helpful for families, according to Joe W. St. Geme, III, MD, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s physician-in-chief and chair of its department of pediatrics. “Some parents, especially those coming from outside an area, find them useful when deciding on care away from home,” he told this news organization. “Most types of pediatric care are available in the community, but sometimes a child has an unusual disease or complex disease for which local care is not available.”

Dr. St. Geme said the new regional rankings may be useful in helping parents decide where to bring a child for care that is closer to where they live.

A top ranking from U.S. News is just one indication of a hospital›s overall performance, according to Angela Lorts, MD, MBA, director of the Ventricular Assist Device Program, at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“Parents seeking care for their child should use the data to ask questions and understand the limitations,” she told this news organization. “Rankings are only based on a small subset of the children we care for. Many of the metrics may not pertain to their child and may not reflect the care they will receive.”

In her view, ranking will not give parents all the information they need about medical care and outcomes for specific conditions.
 

Hospital reaction

Hospitals can use the rankings to target improvements, says Dr. St. Geme. “These rankings can provide an opportunity for some benchmarking, to see what other institutions are doing and how they’re able to deliver care. They can serve as a source of ideas and can influence planning,” he said.

He cautioned that the data are not as complete as they could be. “A number of services are not included, and we try to keep that in mind,” he said.

Rankings may also affect recruitment, Dr. St. Geme added, because higher-ranked institutions may find it easier to attract sought-after clinicians and investigators in needed areas.

Another sphere of influence is philanthropy and fund raising. “People are much more likely to consider making both small and large donations to a high-ranked institution,” said J. Howard Smart, MD, chair of pediatrics at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group and chair-elect of the physician leadership council at Sharp Mary Birch Hospital for Women and Newborns in San Diego.

Dr. St. Geme agrees. “Philanthropists are interested in making investments where they feel they’re a sure bet, and rankings may indicate a sure bet. But their impact on government funding and grant support is probably less.”

Ultimately, however, some families may not have lot of choice in where to go when their children are sick, Dr. Smart said. “And people probably don’t choose a location to live in based on nearby children’s hospitals the way they do for schools,” he said.

What about hospitals that continue to rank much lower on the 50-institution list – excellent though they must be to make it onto the honor roll. “To be on the list but not to have risen in rank in recent years might be a disappointment,” said Dr. St. Geme. “But it might also motivate a hospital to think about making internal investments in order to strengthen a particular service. And it may motivate nonranked hospitals to improve care in order to break into the list.”

Dr. Lorts points out that the annual survey process requires hospitals to track the clinical outcomes of a subset of patients, which may lead to improvement in these areas. It also requires data collection on structure and process, which drives needs assessments of select hospital areas. “But ideally, all hospitals would be tracking important outcomes, benchmarking to peer hospitals, and improving where needed without the U.S. News incentive,” she said.

This year’s data, compiled by research and consulting firm RTI International, derive from feedback on more than 1,200 questions provided by 118 responding institutions. Details on each hospital on the list and the methodology used in the analysis are available on U.S. News & World Report’s website.

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

A third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine can boost antibody levels in people who previously received a solid organ transplant and had an unsatisfactory response to their first two mRNA shots, according to data from a newly published 30-patient case series.

All of those with low titers before the third dose had high titers after receiving the additional shot, but only about 33% of those with negative initial responses had detectable antibodies after the third dose, according to the paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who keep a COVID-19 vaccine registry, perform antibody tests on all registry subjects and inform them of their results. Registry participants were asked to inform the research team if they received a third dose, and, the research team tracked the immune responses of those who did.

The participants in this case series had low antibody levels and received a third dose of the vaccine on their own between March 20 and May 10 of 2021.
 

Third dose results

In this cases series – thought to be the first to look at third vaccine shots in this type of patient group – all six of those who had low antibody titers before the third dose had high-positive titers after the third dose.

Of the 24 individuals who had negative antibody titers before the third dose, just 6 had high titers after the third dose.

Two of the participants had low-positive titers, and 16 were negative.

“Several of those boosted very nicely into ranges seen, using these assays, in healthy persons,” said William Werbel, MD, a fellow in infectious disease at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who helped lead the study. Those with negative levels, even if they responded, tended to have lower titers, he said.

“The benefits at least from an antibody perspective were not the same for everybody and so this is obviously something that needs to be considered when thinking about selecting patients” for a COVID-19 prevention strategy, he said.

Reactions to the vaccine were low to moderate, such as some arm pain and fatigue.

“Showing that something is safe in that special, vulnerable population is important,” Dr. Werbel said. “We’re all wanting to make sure that we’re doing no harm.”

Dr. Werbel noted that there was no pattern in the small series based on the organ transplanted or in the vaccines used. As their third shot, 15 of the patients received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine; 9 received Moderna; and 6 received Pfizer-BioNTech.
 

Welcome news, but larger studies needed

“To think that a third dose could confer protection for a significant number of people is of course extremely welcome news,” said Christian Larsen, MD, DPhil, professor of surgery in the transplantation division at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the easiest conceivable next intervention.”

He added, “We just want studies to confirm that – larger studies.”

Dr. Werbel stressed the importance of looking at third doses in these patients in a more controlled fashion in a randomized trial, to more carefully monitor safety and how patients fare when starting with one type of vaccine and switching to another, for example.

Richard Wender, MD, chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are a reminder that there is still a lot that is unknown about COVID-19 and vaccination.

“We still don’t know who will or will not benefit from a third dose,” he said. “And our knowledge is evolving.  For example, a recent study suggested that people with previous infection and who are vaccinated may have better and longer protection than people with vaccination alone. We’re still learning.”

He added that specialists, not primary care clinicians, should be relied upon to respond to this emerging vaccination data. Primary care doctors are very busy in other ways – such as in getting children caught up on vaccinations and helping adults return to managing their chronic diseases, Dr. Wender noted.

“Their focus needs to be on helping to overcome hesitancy, mistrust, lack of information, or antivaccination sentiment to help more people feel comfortable being vaccinated – this is a lot of work and needs constant focus. In short, primary care clinicians need to focus chiefly on the unvaccinated,” he said.

“Monitoring immunization recommendations for unique at-risk populations should be the chief responsibility of teams providing subspecialty care, [such as for] transplant patients, people with chronic kidney disease, cancer patients, and people with other chronic illnesses.  This will allow primary care clinicians to tackle their many complex jobs.”
 

Possible solutions for those with low antibody responses

Dr. Larsen said that those with ongoing low antibody responses might still have other immune responses, such as a T-cell response. Such patients also could consider changing their vaccine type, he said.

“At the more significant intervention level, there may be circumstances where one could change the immunosuppressive drugs in a controlled way that might allow a better response,” suggested Dr. Larsen. “That’s obviously going to be something that requires a lot more thought and careful study.”

Dr. Werbel said that other options might need to be considered for those having no response following a third dose. One possibility is trying a vaccine with an adjuvant, such as the Novavax version, which might be more widely available soon.

“If you’re given a third dose of a very immunogenic vaccine – something that should work – and you just have no antibody development, it seems relatively unlikely that doing the same thing again is going to help you from that perspective, and for all we know might expose you to more risk,” Dr. Werbel noted.
 

Participant details

None of the 30 patients were thought to have ever had COVID-19. On average, patients had received their transplant 4.5 years before their original vaccination. In 25 patients, maintenance immunosuppression included tacrolimus or cyclosporine along with mycophenolate. Corticosteroids were also used for 24 patients, sirolimus was used for one patient, and belatacept was used for another patient.

Fifty-seven percent of patients had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine originally, and 43% the Moderna vaccine. Most of the patients were kidney recipients, with two heart, three liver, one lung, one pancreas and one kidney-pancreas.

Dr. Werbel, Dr. Wender, and Dr. Larsen reported no relevant disclosures.

A third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine can boost antibody levels in people who previously received a solid organ transplant and had an unsatisfactory response to their first two mRNA shots, according to data from a newly published 30-patient case series.

All of those with low titers before the third dose had high titers after receiving the additional shot, but only about 33% of those with negative initial responses had detectable antibodies after the third dose, according to the paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who keep a COVID-19 vaccine registry, perform antibody tests on all registry subjects and inform them of their results. Registry participants were asked to inform the research team if they received a third dose, and, the research team tracked the immune responses of those who did.

The participants in this case series had low antibody levels and received a third dose of the vaccine on their own between March 20 and May 10 of 2021.
 

Third dose results

In this cases series – thought to be the first to look at third vaccine shots in this type of patient group – all six of those who had low antibody titers before the third dose had high-positive titers after the third dose.

Of the 24 individuals who had negative antibody titers before the third dose, just 6 had high titers after the third dose.

Two of the participants had low-positive titers, and 16 were negative.

“Several of those boosted very nicely into ranges seen, using these assays, in healthy persons,” said William Werbel, MD, a fellow in infectious disease at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who helped lead the study. Those with negative levels, even if they responded, tended to have lower titers, he said.

“The benefits at least from an antibody perspective were not the same for everybody and so this is obviously something that needs to be considered when thinking about selecting patients” for a COVID-19 prevention strategy, he said.

Reactions to the vaccine were low to moderate, such as some arm pain and fatigue.

“Showing that something is safe in that special, vulnerable population is important,” Dr. Werbel said. “We’re all wanting to make sure that we’re doing no harm.”

Dr. Werbel noted that there was no pattern in the small series based on the organ transplanted or in the vaccines used. As their third shot, 15 of the patients received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine; 9 received Moderna; and 6 received Pfizer-BioNTech.
 

Welcome news, but larger studies needed

“To think that a third dose could confer protection for a significant number of people is of course extremely welcome news,” said Christian Larsen, MD, DPhil, professor of surgery in the transplantation division at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the easiest conceivable next intervention.”

He added, “We just want studies to confirm that – larger studies.”

Dr. Werbel stressed the importance of looking at third doses in these patients in a more controlled fashion in a randomized trial, to more carefully monitor safety and how patients fare when starting with one type of vaccine and switching to another, for example.

Richard Wender, MD, chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are a reminder that there is still a lot that is unknown about COVID-19 and vaccination.

“We still don’t know who will or will not benefit from a third dose,” he said. “And our knowledge is evolving.  For example, a recent study suggested that people with previous infection and who are vaccinated may have better and longer protection than people with vaccination alone. We’re still learning.”

He added that specialists, not primary care clinicians, should be relied upon to respond to this emerging vaccination data. Primary care doctors are very busy in other ways – such as in getting children caught up on vaccinations and helping adults return to managing their chronic diseases, Dr. Wender noted.

“Their focus needs to be on helping to overcome hesitancy, mistrust, lack of information, or antivaccination sentiment to help more people feel comfortable being vaccinated – this is a lot of work and needs constant focus. In short, primary care clinicians need to focus chiefly on the unvaccinated,” he said.

“Monitoring immunization recommendations for unique at-risk populations should be the chief responsibility of teams providing subspecialty care, [such as for] transplant patients, people with chronic kidney disease, cancer patients, and people with other chronic illnesses.  This will allow primary care clinicians to tackle their many complex jobs.”
 

Possible solutions for those with low antibody responses

Dr. Larsen said that those with ongoing low antibody responses might still have other immune responses, such as a T-cell response. Such patients also could consider changing their vaccine type, he said.

“At the more significant intervention level, there may be circumstances where one could change the immunosuppressive drugs in a controlled way that might allow a better response,” suggested Dr. Larsen. “That’s obviously going to be something that requires a lot more thought and careful study.”

Dr. Werbel said that other options might need to be considered for those having no response following a third dose. One possibility is trying a vaccine with an adjuvant, such as the Novavax version, which might be more widely available soon.

“If you’re given a third dose of a very immunogenic vaccine – something that should work – and you just have no antibody development, it seems relatively unlikely that doing the same thing again is going to help you from that perspective, and for all we know might expose you to more risk,” Dr. Werbel noted.
 

Participant details

None of the 30 patients were thought to have ever had COVID-19. On average, patients had received their transplant 4.5 years before their original vaccination. In 25 patients, maintenance immunosuppression included tacrolimus or cyclosporine along with mycophenolate. Corticosteroids were also used for 24 patients, sirolimus was used for one patient, and belatacept was used for another patient.

Fifty-seven percent of patients had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine originally, and 43% the Moderna vaccine. Most of the patients were kidney recipients, with two heart, three liver, one lung, one pancreas and one kidney-pancreas.

Dr. Werbel, Dr. Wender, and Dr. Larsen reported no relevant disclosures.

A third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine can boost antibody levels in people who previously received a solid organ transplant and had an unsatisfactory response to their first two mRNA shots, according to data from a newly published 30-patient case series.

All of those with low titers before the third dose had high titers after receiving the additional shot, but only about 33% of those with negative initial responses had detectable antibodies after the third dose, according to the paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who keep a COVID-19 vaccine registry, perform antibody tests on all registry subjects and inform them of their results. Registry participants were asked to inform the research team if they received a third dose, and, the research team tracked the immune responses of those who did.

The participants in this case series had low antibody levels and received a third dose of the vaccine on their own between March 20 and May 10 of 2021.
 

Third dose results

In this cases series – thought to be the first to look at third vaccine shots in this type of patient group – all six of those who had low antibody titers before the third dose had high-positive titers after the third dose.

Of the 24 individuals who had negative antibody titers before the third dose, just 6 had high titers after the third dose.

Two of the participants had low-positive titers, and 16 were negative.

“Several of those boosted very nicely into ranges seen, using these assays, in healthy persons,” said William Werbel, MD, a fellow in infectious disease at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who helped lead the study. Those with negative levels, even if they responded, tended to have lower titers, he said.

“The benefits at least from an antibody perspective were not the same for everybody and so this is obviously something that needs to be considered when thinking about selecting patients” for a COVID-19 prevention strategy, he said.

Reactions to the vaccine were low to moderate, such as some arm pain and fatigue.

“Showing that something is safe in that special, vulnerable population is important,” Dr. Werbel said. “We’re all wanting to make sure that we’re doing no harm.”

Dr. Werbel noted that there was no pattern in the small series based on the organ transplanted or in the vaccines used. As their third shot, 15 of the patients received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine; 9 received Moderna; and 6 received Pfizer-BioNTech.
 

Welcome news, but larger studies needed

“To think that a third dose could confer protection for a significant number of people is of course extremely welcome news,” said Christian Larsen, MD, DPhil, professor of surgery in the transplantation division at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the easiest conceivable next intervention.”

He added, “We just want studies to confirm that – larger studies.”

Dr. Werbel stressed the importance of looking at third doses in these patients in a more controlled fashion in a randomized trial, to more carefully monitor safety and how patients fare when starting with one type of vaccine and switching to another, for example.

Richard Wender, MD, chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are a reminder that there is still a lot that is unknown about COVID-19 and vaccination.

“We still don’t know who will or will not benefit from a third dose,” he said. “And our knowledge is evolving.  For example, a recent study suggested that people with previous infection and who are vaccinated may have better and longer protection than people with vaccination alone. We’re still learning.”

He added that specialists, not primary care clinicians, should be relied upon to respond to this emerging vaccination data. Primary care doctors are very busy in other ways – such as in getting children caught up on vaccinations and helping adults return to managing their chronic diseases, Dr. Wender noted.

“Their focus needs to be on helping to overcome hesitancy, mistrust, lack of information, or antivaccination sentiment to help more people feel comfortable being vaccinated – this is a lot of work and needs constant focus. In short, primary care clinicians need to focus chiefly on the unvaccinated,” he said.

“Monitoring immunization recommendations for unique at-risk populations should be the chief responsibility of teams providing subspecialty care, [such as for] transplant patients, people with chronic kidney disease, cancer patients, and people with other chronic illnesses.  This will allow primary care clinicians to tackle their many complex jobs.”
 

Possible solutions for those with low antibody responses

Dr. Larsen said that those with ongoing low antibody responses might still have other immune responses, such as a T-cell response. Such patients also could consider changing their vaccine type, he said.

“At the more significant intervention level, there may be circumstances where one could change the immunosuppressive drugs in a controlled way that might allow a better response,” suggested Dr. Larsen. “That’s obviously going to be something that requires a lot more thought and careful study.”

Dr. Werbel said that other options might need to be considered for those having no response following a third dose. One possibility is trying a vaccine with an adjuvant, such as the Novavax version, which might be more widely available soon.

“If you’re given a third dose of a very immunogenic vaccine – something that should work – and you just have no antibody development, it seems relatively unlikely that doing the same thing again is going to help you from that perspective, and for all we know might expose you to more risk,” Dr. Werbel noted.
 

Participant details

None of the 30 patients were thought to have ever had COVID-19. On average, patients had received their transplant 4.5 years before their original vaccination. In 25 patients, maintenance immunosuppression included tacrolimus or cyclosporine along with mycophenolate. Corticosteroids were also used for 24 patients, sirolimus was used for one patient, and belatacept was used for another patient.

Fifty-seven percent of patients had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine originally, and 43% the Moderna vaccine. Most of the patients were kidney recipients, with two heart, three liver, one lung, one pancreas and one kidney-pancreas.

Dr. Werbel, Dr. Wender, and Dr. Larsen reported no relevant disclosures.

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at [email protected].

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at [email protected].

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at [email protected].

A potassium hydroxide preparation (KOH) from skin scrapings from the scalp lesions demonstrated no fungal elements. Further laboratory work up revealed a normal blood cell count, normal liver enzymes, an antinuclear antibody (ANA) titer of less than 1:80, a positive anti–Sjögren’s syndrome type B (SSB) antibody but negative anti–Sjögren’s syndrome type A (SSA) antibody and anti-U1RNP antibody. An electrocardiogram revealed no abnormalities. Liver function tests were normal. The complete blood count showed mild thrombocytopenia. Given the typical skin lesions and the positive SSB test and associated thrombocytopenia, the baby was diagnosed with neonatal lupus erythematosus.

Because of the diagnosis of neonatal lupus the mother was also tested and was found to have an elevated ANA of 1:640, positive SSB and antiphospholipid antibodies. The mother was healthy and her review of systems was negative for any collagen vascular disease–related symptoms.
 

Discussion

Neonatal lupus erythematosus (NLE) is a rare form of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) believed to be caused by transplacental transfer of anti-Ro (Sjögren’s syndrome antigen A, SSA), or, less commonly, anti-La (Sjögren’s syndrome antigen B, SSB) from mothers who are positive for these antibodies. Approximately 95% of NLE is associated with maternal anti-SSA; of these cases, 40% are also associated with maternal anti-SSB.¹ Only about 2% of children of mothers who have anti-SSA or anti-SSB develop NLE, a finding that has led some researchers to postulate that maternal factors, fetal genetic factors, and environmental factors determine which children of anti-SSA or SSB positive mothers develop NLE.

A recent review found no association between the development of NLE and fetal birth weight, prematurity, or age.³ Over half of mothers of children who develop NLE are asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis of the neonate,³ though many become symptomatic in following years. Of mothers who are symptomatic, SLE and undifferentiated autoimmune syndrome are the most common diagnoses, though NLE has been rarely reported in the offspring of mothers with Sjögren’s syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.^4,5

Fetal genetics are not an absolute determinant of development of NLE, as discordance in the development of NLE in twins has been reported. However, certain genetic relationships have been established. Fetal mutations in tumor necrosis factor–alpha appear to increase the likelihood of cutaneous manifestations. Mutations in transforming growth factor beta appear to increase the likelihood of cardiac manifestations, and experiments in cultured mouse cardiocytes have shown anti-SSB antibodies to impair macrophage phagocytosis of apoptotic cells in the developing fetal heart. These observations taken together suggest a fibroblast-mediated response to unphagocytosed cardiocyte debris may account for conduction abnormalities in neonates with NLE-induced heart block.⁶

Cutaneous disease in NLE is possible at birth, but more skin findings develop upon exposure to the sun. Nearly 80% of neonates affected by NLE develop cutaneous manifestations in the first few months of life. The head, neck, and extensor surfaces of the arms are most commonly affected, presumably because they are most likely to be exposed to the sun. Erythematous, annular, or discoid lesions are most common, and periorbital erythema with or without scale (“raccoon eyes”) should prompt consideration of NLE. However, annular, or discoid lesions are sometimes not present in NLE; telangiectasias, bullae, atrophic divots (“ice-pick scars”) or ulcerations may be seen instead. Lesions in the genital area have been described in fewer than 5% of patients with NLE.

The differential diagnosis of annular, scaly lesions in neonates includes annular erythema of infancy, tinea corporis, and seborrheic dermatitis. Annular erythema of infancy is a rare skin condition characterized by a cyclical eruption of erythematous annular lesions with minimal scaling which resolve spontaneously within a few weeks to months without leaving scaring or pigment changes. There is no treatment needed as the lesions self-resolve.⁷ Acute urticaria can sometimes appear similar to NLE but these are not scaly and also the lesions will disappear within 24-36 hours, compared with NLE lesions, which may take weeks to months to go away. Seborrheic dermatitis is a common skin condition seen in newborns with in the first few weeks of life and can present as scaly annular erythematous plaques on the face, scalp, torso, and the diaper area. Seborrheic dermatitis usually responds well to a combination of an antiyeast cream and a low-potency topical corticosteroid medication.

When NLE is suspected, diagnostic testing for lupus antibodies (anti-SSA, anti-SSB, and anti-U1RNP) in both maternal and neonatal serum should be undertaken. The presence of a characteristic rash plus maternal or neonatal antibodies is sufficient to make the diagnosis. If the rash is less characteristic, a biopsy showing an interface dermatitis can help solidify the diagnosis. Neonates with cutaneous manifestations of lupus may also have systemic disease. The most common and serious complication is heart block, whose pathophysiology is described above. Neonates with evidence of first-, second-, or third-degree heart block should be referred to a pediatric cardiologist for careful monitoring and management. Hepatic involvement has been reported, but is usually mild. Hematologic abnormalities have also been described that include anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia, which resolve by 9 months of age. Central nervous system involvement may rarely occur. The mainstay of treatment for the rash in NLE is diligent sun avoidance and sun protection. Topical corticosteroids may be used, but are not needed as the rash typically resolves by 9 months to 1 year without treatment. Mothers who have one child with NLE should be advised that they are more likely to have another with NLE – the risk is as high as 30%-40% in the second child. Hydroxychloroquine taken during subsequent pregnancies can reduce the incidence of cardiac complications,⁸ as can the so-called “triple therapy” of plasmapheresis, steroids, and IVIg.⁹

The cutaneous manifestations of NLE are usually self-limiting. However, they can serve as important clues that can prompt diagnosis of SLE in the mother, investigation of cardiac complications in the infant, and appropriate preventative care in future pregnancies.

Dr. Matiz is with the department of dermatology, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. Mr. Kusari is with the department of dermatology, University of California, San Francisco.

References

1. Moretti D et al. Int J Dermatol. 2014;53(12):1508-12.

2. Buyon JP et al. Nature Clin Prac Rheum. 2009;5(3):139-48.

3. Li Y-Q et al. Int J Rheum Dis. 2015;18(7):761-7.

4. Rivera TL et al. Annals Rheum Dis. 2009;68(6):828-35.

5. Li L et al. Zhonghua er ke za zhi 2011;49(2):146-50.

6. Izmirly PM et al. Clin Rheumatol. 2011;30(12):1641-5.

7. Toledo-Alberola F and Betlloch-Mas I. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2010 Jul;101(6):473-84.

8. Izmirly PM et al. Circulation. 2012;126(1):76-82.

9. Martinez-Sanchez N et al. Autoimmun Rev. 2015;14(5):423-8.

A potassium hydroxide preparation (KOH) from skin scrapings from the scalp lesions demonstrated no fungal elements. Further laboratory work up revealed a normal blood cell count, normal liver enzymes, an antinuclear antibody (ANA) titer of less than 1:80, a positive anti–Sjögren’s syndrome type B (SSB) antibody but negative anti–Sjögren’s syndrome type A (SSA) antibody and anti-U1RNP antibody. An electrocardiogram revealed no abnormalities. Liver function tests were normal. The complete blood count showed mild thrombocytopenia. Given the typical skin lesions and the positive SSB test and associated thrombocytopenia, the baby was diagnosed with neonatal lupus erythematosus.

Because of the diagnosis of neonatal lupus the mother was also tested and was found to have an elevated ANA of 1:640, positive SSB and antiphospholipid antibodies. The mother was healthy and her review of systems was negative for any collagen vascular disease–related symptoms.
 

Discussion

Neonatal lupus erythematosus (NLE) is a rare form of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) believed to be caused by transplacental transfer of anti-Ro (Sjögren’s syndrome antigen A, SSA), or, less commonly, anti-La (Sjögren’s syndrome antigen B, SSB) from mothers who are positive for these antibodies. Approximately 95% of NLE is associated with maternal anti-SSA; of these cases, 40% are also associated with maternal anti-SSB.¹ Only about 2% of children of mothers who have anti-SSA or anti-SSB develop NLE, a finding that has led some researchers to postulate that maternal factors, fetal genetic factors, and environmental factors determine which children of anti-SSA or SSB positive mothers develop NLE.

A recent review found no association between the development of NLE and fetal birth weight, prematurity, or age.³ Over half of mothers of children who develop NLE are asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis of the neonate,³ though many become symptomatic in following years. Of mothers who are symptomatic, SLE and undifferentiated autoimmune syndrome are the most common diagnoses, though NLE has been rarely reported in the offspring of mothers with Sjögren’s syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.^4,5

Fetal genetics are not an absolute determinant of development of NLE, as discordance in the development of NLE in twins has been reported. However, certain genetic relationships have been established. Fetal mutations in tumor necrosis factor–alpha appear to increase the likelihood of cutaneous manifestations. Mutations in transforming growth factor beta appear to increase the likelihood of cardiac manifestations, and experiments in cultured mouse cardiocytes have shown anti-SSB antibodies to impair macrophage phagocytosis of apoptotic cells in the developing fetal heart. These observations taken together suggest a fibroblast-mediated response to unphagocytosed cardiocyte debris may account for conduction abnormalities in neonates with NLE-induced heart block.⁶

Cutaneous disease in NLE is possible at birth, but more skin findings develop upon exposure to the sun. Nearly 80% of neonates affected by NLE develop cutaneous manifestations in the first few months of life. The head, neck, and extensor surfaces of the arms are most commonly affected, presumably because they are most likely to be exposed to the sun. Erythematous, annular, or discoid lesions are most common, and periorbital erythema with or without scale (“raccoon eyes”) should prompt consideration of NLE. However, annular, or discoid lesions are sometimes not present in NLE; telangiectasias, bullae, atrophic divots (“ice-pick scars”) or ulcerations may be seen instead. Lesions in the genital area have been described in fewer than 5% of patients with NLE.

The differential diagnosis of annular, scaly lesions in neonates includes annular erythema of infancy, tinea corporis, and seborrheic dermatitis. Annular erythema of infancy is a rare skin condition characterized by a cyclical eruption of erythematous annular lesions with minimal scaling which resolve spontaneously within a few weeks to months without leaving scaring or pigment changes. There is no treatment needed as the lesions self-resolve.⁷ Acute urticaria can sometimes appear similar to NLE but these are not scaly and also the lesions will disappear within 24-36 hours, compared with NLE lesions, which may take weeks to months to go away. Seborrheic dermatitis is a common skin condition seen in newborns with in the first few weeks of life and can present as scaly annular erythematous plaques on the face, scalp, torso, and the diaper area. Seborrheic dermatitis usually responds well to a combination of an antiyeast cream and a low-potency topical corticosteroid medication.

When NLE is suspected, diagnostic testing for lupus antibodies (anti-SSA, anti-SSB, and anti-U1RNP) in both maternal and neonatal serum should be undertaken. The presence of a characteristic rash plus maternal or neonatal antibodies is sufficient to make the diagnosis. If the rash is less characteristic, a biopsy showing an interface dermatitis can help solidify the diagnosis. Neonates with cutaneous manifestations of lupus may also have systemic disease. The most common and serious complication is heart block, whose pathophysiology is described above. Neonates with evidence of first-, second-, or third-degree heart block should be referred to a pediatric cardiologist for careful monitoring and management. Hepatic involvement has been reported, but is usually mild. Hematologic abnormalities have also been described that include anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia, which resolve by 9 months of age. Central nervous system involvement may rarely occur. The mainstay of treatment for the rash in NLE is diligent sun avoidance and sun protection. Topical corticosteroids may be used, but are not needed as the rash typically resolves by 9 months to 1 year without treatment. Mothers who have one child with NLE should be advised that they are more likely to have another with NLE – the risk is as high as 30%-40% in the second child. Hydroxychloroquine taken during subsequent pregnancies can reduce the incidence of cardiac complications,⁸ as can the so-called “triple therapy” of plasmapheresis, steroids, and IVIg.⁹

The cutaneous manifestations of NLE are usually self-limiting. However, they can serve as important clues that can prompt diagnosis of SLE in the mother, investigation of cardiac complications in the infant, and appropriate preventative care in future pregnancies.

Dr. Matiz is with the department of dermatology, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. Mr. Kusari is with the department of dermatology, University of California, San Francisco.

References

1. Moretti D et al. Int J Dermatol. 2014;53(12):1508-12.

2. Buyon JP et al. Nature Clin Prac Rheum. 2009;5(3):139-48.

3. Li Y-Q et al. Int J Rheum Dis. 2015;18(7):761-7.

4. Rivera TL et al. Annals Rheum Dis. 2009;68(6):828-35.

5. Li L et al. Zhonghua er ke za zhi 2011;49(2):146-50.

6. Izmirly PM et al. Clin Rheumatol. 2011;30(12):1641-5.

7. Toledo-Alberola F and Betlloch-Mas I. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2010 Jul;101(6):473-84.

8. Izmirly PM et al. Circulation. 2012;126(1):76-82.

9. Martinez-Sanchez N et al. Autoimmun Rev. 2015;14(5):423-8.

A potassium hydroxide preparation (KOH) from skin scrapings from the scalp lesions demonstrated no fungal elements. Further laboratory work up revealed a normal blood cell count, normal liver enzymes, an antinuclear antibody (ANA) titer of less than 1:80, a positive anti–Sjögren’s syndrome type B (SSB) antibody but negative anti–Sjögren’s syndrome type A (SSA) antibody and anti-U1RNP antibody. An electrocardiogram revealed no abnormalities. Liver function tests were normal. The complete blood count showed mild thrombocytopenia. Given the typical skin lesions and the positive SSB test and associated thrombocytopenia, the baby was diagnosed with neonatal lupus erythematosus.

Because of the diagnosis of neonatal lupus the mother was also tested and was found to have an elevated ANA of 1:640, positive SSB and antiphospholipid antibodies. The mother was healthy and her review of systems was negative for any collagen vascular disease–related symptoms.
 

Discussion

Neonatal lupus erythematosus (NLE) is a rare form of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) believed to be caused by transplacental transfer of anti-Ro (Sjögren’s syndrome antigen A, SSA), or, less commonly, anti-La (Sjögren’s syndrome antigen B, SSB) from mothers who are positive for these antibodies. Approximately 95% of NLE is associated with maternal anti-SSA; of these cases, 40% are also associated with maternal anti-SSB.¹ Only about 2% of children of mothers who have anti-SSA or anti-SSB develop NLE, a finding that has led some researchers to postulate that maternal factors, fetal genetic factors, and environmental factors determine which children of anti-SSA or SSB positive mothers develop NLE.

A recent review found no association between the development of NLE and fetal birth weight, prematurity, or age.³ Over half of mothers of children who develop NLE are asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis of the neonate,³ though many become symptomatic in following years. Of mothers who are symptomatic, SLE and undifferentiated autoimmune syndrome are the most common diagnoses, though NLE has been rarely reported in the offspring of mothers with Sjögren’s syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.^4,5

Fetal genetics are not an absolute determinant of development of NLE, as discordance in the development of NLE in twins has been reported. However, certain genetic relationships have been established. Fetal mutations in tumor necrosis factor–alpha appear to increase the likelihood of cutaneous manifestations. Mutations in transforming growth factor beta appear to increase the likelihood of cardiac manifestations, and experiments in cultured mouse cardiocytes have shown anti-SSB antibodies to impair macrophage phagocytosis of apoptotic cells in the developing fetal heart. These observations taken together suggest a fibroblast-mediated response to unphagocytosed cardiocyte debris may account for conduction abnormalities in neonates with NLE-induced heart block.⁶

Cutaneous disease in NLE is possible at birth, but more skin findings develop upon exposure to the sun. Nearly 80% of neonates affected by NLE develop cutaneous manifestations in the first few months of life. The head, neck, and extensor surfaces of the arms are most commonly affected, presumably because they are most likely to be exposed to the sun. Erythematous, annular, or discoid lesions are most common, and periorbital erythema with or without scale (“raccoon eyes”) should prompt consideration of NLE. However, annular, or discoid lesions are sometimes not present in NLE; telangiectasias, bullae, atrophic divots (“ice-pick scars”) or ulcerations may be seen instead. Lesions in the genital area have been described in fewer than 5% of patients with NLE.

The differential diagnosis of annular, scaly lesions in neonates includes annular erythema of infancy, tinea corporis, and seborrheic dermatitis. Annular erythema of infancy is a rare skin condition characterized by a cyclical eruption of erythematous annular lesions with minimal scaling which resolve spontaneously within a few weeks to months without leaving scaring or pigment changes. There is no treatment needed as the lesions self-resolve.⁷ Acute urticaria can sometimes appear similar to NLE but these are not scaly and also the lesions will disappear within 24-36 hours, compared with NLE lesions, which may take weeks to months to go away. Seborrheic dermatitis is a common skin condition seen in newborns with in the first few weeks of life and can present as scaly annular erythematous plaques on the face, scalp, torso, and the diaper area. Seborrheic dermatitis usually responds well to a combination of an antiyeast cream and a low-potency topical corticosteroid medication.

When NLE is suspected, diagnostic testing for lupus antibodies (anti-SSA, anti-SSB, and anti-U1RNP) in both maternal and neonatal serum should be undertaken. The presence of a characteristic rash plus maternal or neonatal antibodies is sufficient to make the diagnosis. If the rash is less characteristic, a biopsy showing an interface dermatitis can help solidify the diagnosis. Neonates with cutaneous manifestations of lupus may also have systemic disease. The most common and serious complication is heart block, whose pathophysiology is described above. Neonates with evidence of first-, second-, or third-degree heart block should be referred to a pediatric cardiologist for careful monitoring and management. Hepatic involvement has been reported, but is usually mild. Hematologic abnormalities have also been described that include anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia, which resolve by 9 months of age. Central nervous system involvement may rarely occur. The mainstay of treatment for the rash in NLE is diligent sun avoidance and sun protection. Topical corticosteroids may be used, but are not needed as the rash typically resolves by 9 months to 1 year without treatment. Mothers who have one child with NLE should be advised that they are more likely to have another with NLE – the risk is as high as 30%-40% in the second child. Hydroxychloroquine taken during subsequent pregnancies can reduce the incidence of cardiac complications,⁸ as can the so-called “triple therapy” of plasmapheresis, steroids, and IVIg.⁹

The cutaneous manifestations of NLE are usually self-limiting. However, they can serve as important clues that can prompt diagnosis of SLE in the mother, investigation of cardiac complications in the infant, and appropriate preventative care in future pregnancies.

Dr. Matiz is with the department of dermatology, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. Mr. Kusari is with the department of dermatology, University of California, San Francisco.

References

1. Moretti D et al. Int J Dermatol. 2014;53(12):1508-12.

2. Buyon JP et al. Nature Clin Prac Rheum. 2009;5(3):139-48.

3. Li Y-Q et al. Int J Rheum Dis. 2015;18(7):761-7.

4. Rivera TL et al. Annals Rheum Dis. 2009;68(6):828-35.

5. Li L et al. Zhonghua er ke za zhi 2011;49(2):146-50.

6. Izmirly PM et al. Clin Rheumatol. 2011;30(12):1641-5.

7. Toledo-Alberola F and Betlloch-Mas I. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2010 Jul;101(6):473-84.

8. Izmirly PM et al. Circulation. 2012;126(1):76-82.

9. Martinez-Sanchez N et al. Autoimmun Rev. 2015;14(5):423-8.

Charlie is a 15-year-old male whose medical history includes overweight and autism spectrum disorder. While his autism symptoms are stable and he is doing fairly well in school, your sense is that he is underperforming and unhappy. His screening for anxiety and depression is not outstanding and you wonder whether to leave well enough alone.

Historically, pediatrician queries about media use happen in a minority of visits,¹ overcrowded by the multitude of screening and acute care needs, let alone the pressures of electronic health record prompts, billing, and documentation. Yet the COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized what was already getting louder: screen life is becoming a ubiquitous, increasing, and normative function of child development. Digital well-being exhibits bidirectional interactions with most of the core indicators of child health: sleep, nutrition, safety, mood, relationships, and many other aspects of physical and mental health.¹

The pandemic unveiled the blessings and curses of digital life by shifting many into remote work and school situations where screen time became both necessary and uncontrollable. Reeling with changes in employment, health, finances, and more, families struggled to forge a new screen-life balance that could bridge academic, professional, and recreational use.

Research has wavered in producing a verdict on the effects of screen time, in part because of limitations in methodology and follow-up time^,2 and exacerbated by the quickly changing nature of screen use. Screen time may put youth at risk for obesity and behavior problems,³ but the latter may be mediated in part by loss of sleep because of late-night digital activity.⁴ While survey data at the population level show little link between screen time and well-being impairments^,5 zooming in on individuals may tell a different story. Twenge and Campbell show light use of digital media (compared with nonuse) is associated with greater well-being while heavy use is associated with lower well-being and a higher risk for depression and suicidal behavior – especially in girls.^6,7 Largely cross-sectional data show a small detriment to psychological well-being associated with digital technology, though this may be bidirectional and does not clearly differentiate types of technology.²

Recent neuroscience suggests that, compared with active play, sedentary screen time after school reduced impulse control and increased brain activity in regions associated with craving.⁸ This may explain some of the link between screen time and obesity. Brain imaging of preschoolers showed that greater screen time correlated with lower reading readiness as well as less integrity of white-matter tracts involved in language and executive function,⁹ whereas nurturing home reading practices were protective for language development and white matter integrity.¹⁰

Returning to the care of Charlie, providers may benefit from taking time to reflect on their own digital environment. What does the patient-side view of your office look like? Many offices use telephone reminders and patient portals, fill prescriptions electronically, and have waiting rooms with WiFi or devices for children’s use. Office visits share space with providers’ desktops, laptops, and smartphones, with EMRs guiding the visit. EMRs may come home for evening documentation. How does this affect provider digital well-being? How do you start the conversation with families about digital well-being?

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends media screening be incorporated into routine pediatric care, with several tools available to support this. Adapting the HEADSSS model for psychosocial check-ins, Clark and colleagues propose an additional “S” to capture screen time.¹¹ Their model queries which apps and social media are used, quantity of use, effects on self-confidence, and whether cyberbullying or sexting are occurring. Smartphones themselves provide an eye-opening and accessible dataset, with built-in features (for example, Screen Time for iOS) tracking not just daily duration of use, but also how frequently the phone is picked up and which apps get more use. Screening may be followed by motivational coaching, emphasizing nonjudgment, curiosity, empathy, and flexibility — for patient and provider.¹²

In Charlie’s case, screening reveals heavy use of social Internet games that connect him with like-minded peers. While he describes an inclusiveness and level of socialization that he has not found outside the home, the quantity of use is interfering with sleep, schoolwork, and physical activity.

Significant problematic Internet use may lead to intervention or referral – addictive behaviors and mental health symptoms may warrant connection with mental health providers. Cyberbullying or unsafe behaviors may additionally benefit from parental and school-based support. There is early and limited evidence that psychological and educational interventions may be of benefit for problematic Internet use.¹³

When digital life is not so dramatically affecting well-being, providers may begin by working with families on a media use plan. The AAP offers its own website to support this. Other well-researched and well-designed sites include Digital Wellness Lab For Parents, with developmentally staged information and plentiful research, and Common Sense Media, which reviews apps, movies, and more; plus they have a knowledge/advice section under “Parents Need to Know.” Keep in mind that digital media can also support youth in managing psychiatric problems, e.g., a digital intervention promoting positive psychology practices looked very helpful for young people with psychosis.¹⁴

For Charlie, a health coaching approach is adopted. Using Gabrielli’s TECH parenting rubric,¹⁵ Charlie’s parents are coached to make space to talk about and coview media and apps, as well as creating a Family Media Use Plan for everyone – parents included. Alongside setting limits on screen time; health promotion activities like exercise, reading, and schoolwork are also rewarded with extra screen time. When Charlie returns 3 months later, the family reports that, in recognition of their collective digital overload, they preserved dinnertime and after 10 p.m. as screen-free downtime. While they still have concerns about Charlie’s gaming and social life, his sleep is somewhat improved and family tension is lower.

Attention to digital well-being stands to benefit provider and patient alike, and over time may gain from the scaffolding of handouts, standardized assessments, and health coaching providers that may be in place to support other important domains like sleep hygiene, food security, and parenting.

Dr. Rosenfeld is assistant professor, University of Vermont, Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families, Burlington. He has no relevant disclosures.

References

1. Chassiakos YR et al. Pediatrics. 2016;138(5)e20162593.

2. Orben A. Soc Psychiatry Psych Epi. 2020;55(4):407.

3. Fang K et al. Child Care Health Dev. 2019;45(5):744-53.

4. Janssen X et al. Sleep Med Rev. 2020;49:101226.

5. George MJ et al. J Ped. 2020;219:180.

6. Twenge JM and Campbell WK. Psychiatry Q. 2019;90(2):311-31.

7. Twenge JM and Martin GN. J Adolesc. 2020;79:91.

8. Efraim M et al. Brain Imaging Behav. 2021;15(1):177-89.

9. Hutton JS et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(1):e193869.

10. Hutton JS et al. Acta Paediatr. 2020;109(7):1376-86.

11. Clark DL et al. Pediatrics. 2018;141(6).

12. Jericho M and Elliot A. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2020;25(3):662.

13. Malinauskas R and Malinauskine V. J Behav Addict. 2019;8(4):613.

14. Lim MH et al. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epi. 2020;55(7):877-89.

15. Gabrielli J et al. Pediatrics. 2018;142(1)e20173718.

Charlie is a 15-year-old male whose medical history includes overweight and autism spectrum disorder. While his autism symptoms are stable and he is doing fairly well in school, your sense is that he is underperforming and unhappy. His screening for anxiety and depression is not outstanding and you wonder whether to leave well enough alone.

Historically, pediatrician queries about media use happen in a minority of visits,¹ overcrowded by the multitude of screening and acute care needs, let alone the pressures of electronic health record prompts, billing, and documentation. Yet the COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized what was already getting louder: screen life is becoming a ubiquitous, increasing, and normative function of child development. Digital well-being exhibits bidirectional interactions with most of the core indicators of child health: sleep, nutrition, safety, mood, relationships, and many other aspects of physical and mental health.¹

The pandemic unveiled the blessings and curses of digital life by shifting many into remote work and school situations where screen time became both necessary and uncontrollable. Reeling with changes in employment, health, finances, and more, families struggled to forge a new screen-life balance that could bridge academic, professional, and recreational use.

Research has wavered in producing a verdict on the effects of screen time, in part because of limitations in methodology and follow-up time^,2 and exacerbated by the quickly changing nature of screen use. Screen time may put youth at risk for obesity and behavior problems,³ but the latter may be mediated in part by loss of sleep because of late-night digital activity.⁴ While survey data at the population level show little link between screen time and well-being impairments^,5 zooming in on individuals may tell a different story. Twenge and Campbell show light use of digital media (compared with nonuse) is associated with greater well-being while heavy use is associated with lower well-being and a higher risk for depression and suicidal behavior – especially in girls.^6,7 Largely cross-sectional data show a small detriment to psychological well-being associated with digital technology, though this may be bidirectional and does not clearly differentiate types of technology.²

Recent neuroscience suggests that, compared with active play, sedentary screen time after school reduced impulse control and increased brain activity in regions associated with craving.⁸ This may explain some of the link between screen time and obesity. Brain imaging of preschoolers showed that greater screen time correlated with lower reading readiness as well as less integrity of white-matter tracts involved in language and executive function,⁹ whereas nurturing home reading practices were protective for language development and white matter integrity.¹⁰

Returning to the care of Charlie, providers may benefit from taking time to reflect on their own digital environment. What does the patient-side view of your office look like? Many offices use telephone reminders and patient portals, fill prescriptions electronically, and have waiting rooms with WiFi or devices for children’s use. Office visits share space with providers’ desktops, laptops, and smartphones, with EMRs guiding the visit. EMRs may come home for evening documentation. How does this affect provider digital well-being? How do you start the conversation with families about digital well-being?

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends media screening be incorporated into routine pediatric care, with several tools available to support this. Adapting the HEADSSS model for psychosocial check-ins, Clark and colleagues propose an additional “S” to capture screen time.¹¹ Their model queries which apps and social media are used, quantity of use, effects on self-confidence, and whether cyberbullying or sexting are occurring. Smartphones themselves provide an eye-opening and accessible dataset, with built-in features (for example, Screen Time for iOS) tracking not just daily duration of use, but also how frequently the phone is picked up and which apps get more use. Screening may be followed by motivational coaching, emphasizing nonjudgment, curiosity, empathy, and flexibility — for patient and provider.¹²

In Charlie’s case, screening reveals heavy use of social Internet games that connect him with like-minded peers. While he describes an inclusiveness and level of socialization that he has not found outside the home, the quantity of use is interfering with sleep, schoolwork, and physical activity.

Significant problematic Internet use may lead to intervention or referral – addictive behaviors and mental health symptoms may warrant connection with mental health providers. Cyberbullying or unsafe behaviors may additionally benefit from parental and school-based support. There is early and limited evidence that psychological and educational interventions may be of benefit for problematic Internet use.¹³

When digital life is not so dramatically affecting well-being, providers may begin by working with families on a media use plan. The AAP offers its own website to support this. Other well-researched and well-designed sites include Digital Wellness Lab For Parents, with developmentally staged information and plentiful research, and Common Sense Media, which reviews apps, movies, and more; plus they have a knowledge/advice section under “Parents Need to Know.” Keep in mind that digital media can also support youth in managing psychiatric problems, e.g., a digital intervention promoting positive psychology practices looked very helpful for young people with psychosis.¹⁴

For Charlie, a health coaching approach is adopted. Using Gabrielli’s TECH parenting rubric,¹⁵ Charlie’s parents are coached to make space to talk about and coview media and apps, as well as creating a Family Media Use Plan for everyone – parents included. Alongside setting limits on screen time; health promotion activities like exercise, reading, and schoolwork are also rewarded with extra screen time. When Charlie returns 3 months later, the family reports that, in recognition of their collective digital overload, they preserved dinnertime and after 10 p.m. as screen-free downtime. While they still have concerns about Charlie’s gaming and social life, his sleep is somewhat improved and family tension is lower.

Attention to digital well-being stands to benefit provider and patient alike, and over time may gain from the scaffolding of handouts, standardized assessments, and health coaching providers that may be in place to support other important domains like sleep hygiene, food security, and parenting.

Dr. Rosenfeld is assistant professor, University of Vermont, Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families, Burlington. He has no relevant disclosures.

References

1. Chassiakos YR et al. Pediatrics. 2016;138(5)e20162593.

2. Orben A. Soc Psychiatry Psych Epi. 2020;55(4):407.

3. Fang K et al. Child Care Health Dev. 2019;45(5):744-53.

4. Janssen X et al. Sleep Med Rev. 2020;49:101226.

5. George MJ et al. J Ped. 2020;219:180.

6. Twenge JM and Campbell WK. Psychiatry Q. 2019;90(2):311-31.

7. Twenge JM and Martin GN. J Adolesc. 2020;79:91.

8. Efraim M et al. Brain Imaging Behav. 2021;15(1):177-89.

9. Hutton JS et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(1):e193869.

10. Hutton JS et al. Acta Paediatr. 2020;109(7):1376-86.

11. Clark DL et al. Pediatrics. 2018;141(6).

12. Jericho M and Elliot A. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2020;25(3):662.

13. Malinauskas R and Malinauskine V. J Behav Addict. 2019;8(4):613.

14. Lim MH et al. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epi. 2020;55(7):877-89.

15. Gabrielli J et al. Pediatrics. 2018;142(1)e20173718.

Charlie is a 15-year-old male whose medical history includes overweight and autism spectrum disorder. While his autism symptoms are stable and he is doing fairly well in school, your sense is that he is underperforming and unhappy. His screening for anxiety and depression is not outstanding and you wonder whether to leave well enough alone.

Historically, pediatrician queries about media use happen in a minority of visits,¹ overcrowded by the multitude of screening and acute care needs, let alone the pressures of electronic health record prompts, billing, and documentation. Yet the COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized what was already getting louder: screen life is becoming a ubiquitous, increasing, and normative function of child development. Digital well-being exhibits bidirectional interactions with most of the core indicators of child health: sleep, nutrition, safety, mood, relationships, and many other aspects of physical and mental health.¹

The pandemic unveiled the blessings and curses of digital life by shifting many into remote work and school situations where screen time became both necessary and uncontrollable. Reeling with changes in employment, health, finances, and more, families struggled to forge a new screen-life balance that could bridge academic, professional, and recreational use.

Research has wavered in producing a verdict on the effects of screen time, in part because of limitations in methodology and follow-up time^,2 and exacerbated by the quickly changing nature of screen use. Screen time may put youth at risk for obesity and behavior problems,³ but the latter may be mediated in part by loss of sleep because of late-night digital activity.⁴ While survey data at the population level show little link between screen time and well-being impairments^,5 zooming in on individuals may tell a different story. Twenge and Campbell show light use of digital media (compared with nonuse) is associated with greater well-being while heavy use is associated with lower well-being and a higher risk for depression and suicidal behavior – especially in girls.^6,7 Largely cross-sectional data show a small detriment to psychological well-being associated with digital technology, though this may be bidirectional and does not clearly differentiate types of technology.²

Recent neuroscience suggests that, compared with active play, sedentary screen time after school reduced impulse control and increased brain activity in regions associated with craving.⁸ This may explain some of the link between screen time and obesity. Brain imaging of preschoolers showed that greater screen time correlated with lower reading readiness as well as less integrity of white-matter tracts involved in language and executive function,⁹ whereas nurturing home reading practices were protective for language development and white matter integrity.¹⁰

Returning to the care of Charlie, providers may benefit from taking time to reflect on their own digital environment. What does the patient-side view of your office look like? Many offices use telephone reminders and patient portals, fill prescriptions electronically, and have waiting rooms with WiFi or devices for children’s use. Office visits share space with providers’ desktops, laptops, and smartphones, with EMRs guiding the visit. EMRs may come home for evening documentation. How does this affect provider digital well-being? How do you start the conversation with families about digital well-being?

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends media screening be incorporated into routine pediatric care, with several tools available to support this. Adapting the HEADSSS model for psychosocial check-ins, Clark and colleagues propose an additional “S” to capture screen time.¹¹ Their model queries which apps and social media are used, quantity of use, effects on self-confidence, and whether cyberbullying or sexting are occurring. Smartphones themselves provide an eye-opening and accessible dataset, with built-in features (for example, Screen Time for iOS) tracking not just daily duration of use, but also how frequently the phone is picked up and which apps get more use. Screening may be followed by motivational coaching, emphasizing nonjudgment, curiosity, empathy, and flexibility — for patient and provider.¹²

In Charlie’s case, screening reveals heavy use of social Internet games that connect him with like-minded peers. While he describes an inclusiveness and level of socialization that he has not found outside the home, the quantity of use is interfering with sleep, schoolwork, and physical activity.

Significant problematic Internet use may lead to intervention or referral – addictive behaviors and mental health symptoms may warrant connection with mental health providers. Cyberbullying or unsafe behaviors may additionally benefit from parental and school-based support. There is early and limited evidence that psychological and educational interventions may be of benefit for problematic Internet use.¹³

When digital life is not so dramatically affecting well-being, providers may begin by working with families on a media use plan. The AAP offers its own website to support this. Other well-researched and well-designed sites include Digital Wellness Lab For Parents, with developmentally staged information and plentiful research, and Common Sense Media, which reviews apps, movies, and more; plus they have a knowledge/advice section under “Parents Need to Know.” Keep in mind that digital media can also support youth in managing psychiatric problems, e.g., a digital intervention promoting positive psychology practices looked very helpful for young people with psychosis.¹⁴

For Charlie, a health coaching approach is adopted. Using Gabrielli’s TECH parenting rubric,¹⁵ Charlie’s parents are coached to make space to talk about and coview media and apps, as well as creating a Family Media Use Plan for everyone – parents included. Alongside setting limits on screen time; health promotion activities like exercise, reading, and schoolwork are also rewarded with extra screen time. When Charlie returns 3 months later, the family reports that, in recognition of their collective digital overload, they preserved dinnertime and after 10 p.m. as screen-free downtime. While they still have concerns about Charlie’s gaming and social life, his sleep is somewhat improved and family tension is lower.

Attention to digital well-being stands to benefit provider and patient alike, and over time may gain from the scaffolding of handouts, standardized assessments, and health coaching providers that may be in place to support other important domains like sleep hygiene, food security, and parenting.

Dr. Rosenfeld is assistant professor, University of Vermont, Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families, Burlington. He has no relevant disclosures.

References

1. Chassiakos YR et al. Pediatrics. 2016;138(5)e20162593.

2. Orben A. Soc Psychiatry Psych Epi. 2020;55(4):407.

3. Fang K et al. Child Care Health Dev. 2019;45(5):744-53.

4. Janssen X et al. Sleep Med Rev. 2020;49:101226.

5. George MJ et al. J Ped. 2020;219:180.

6. Twenge JM and Campbell WK. Psychiatry Q. 2019;90(2):311-31.

7. Twenge JM and Martin GN. J Adolesc. 2020;79:91.

8. Efraim M et al. Brain Imaging Behav. 2021;15(1):177-89.

9. Hutton JS et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(1):e193869.

10. Hutton JS et al. Acta Paediatr. 2020;109(7):1376-86.

11. Clark DL et al. Pediatrics. 2018;141(6).

12. Jericho M and Elliot A. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2020;25(3):662.

13. Malinauskas R and Malinauskine V. J Behav Addict. 2019;8(4):613.

14. Lim MH et al. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epi. 2020;55(7):877-89.

15. Gabrielli J et al. Pediatrics. 2018;142(1)e20173718.

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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