MDedge Pediatrics

Cardiothoracic surgeon J. Marvin Smith III, MD, had always thrived on a busy practice schedule, often performing 20-30 surgeries a week. A practicing surgeon for more than 40 years, Dr. Smith said he had no plans to slow down anytime soon.

But Dr. Smith said his career was derailed when leaders at Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio initiated a sudden peer review proceeding against him. The hospital system alleged certain surgeries performed by Dr. Smith had excessive mortality rates. When he proved the data inaccurate, Dr. Smith said administrators next claimed he was cognitively impaired and wasn’t safe to practice.

Dr. Smith has now been embroiled in a peer review dispute with the hospital system for more than 2 years and says the conflict has essentially forced him out of surgical practice. He believes the peer review was “malicious” and was really launched because of complaints he made about nurse staffing and other issues at the hospital.

“I think it is absolutely in bad faith and is disingenuous what they’ve told me along the way,” said Dr. Smith, 73. “It’s because I pointed out deficiencies in nursing care, and they want to get rid of me. It would be a lot easier for them if I had a contract and they could control me better. But the fact that I was independent, meant they had to resort to a malicious peer review to try and push me out.”

Dr. Smith had a peer review hearing with Methodist in March 2021, and in April, a panel found in Dr. Smith’s favor, according to Dr. Smith. The findings were sent to the hospital’s medical board for review, which issued a decision in early May.

Eric A. Pullen, an attorney for Dr. Smith, said he could not go into detail about the board’s decision for legal reasons, but that “the medical board’s decision did not completely resolve the matter, and Dr. Smith intends to exercise his procedural rights, which could include an appeal.”

Methodist Hospital Texsan and its parent company, Methodist Health System of San Antonio, did not respond to messages seeking comment about the case. Without hearing from the hospital system, its side is unknown and it is unclear if there is more to the story from Methodist’s view.

Malicious peer review – also called sham peer review – is defined as misusing the medical peer review process for malevolent purposes, such as to silence or to remove a physician. The problem is not new, but some experts, such as Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, say the practice has become more common in recent years, particularly against independent doctors.

Dr. Huntoon believes there is a nationwide trend at many hospitals to get rid of independent physicians and replace them with employed doctors, he said.

However, because most sham peer reviews go on behind closed doors, there are no data to pinpoint its prevalence or measure its growth.

“Independent physicians are basically being purged from medical staffs across the United States,” said Dr. Huntoon, who is chair of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons’ Committee to Combat Sham Peer Review. “The hospitals want more control over how physicians practice and who they refer to, and they do that by having employees.”

Anthony P. Weiss, MD, MBA, chief medical officer for Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center said it has not been his experience that independent physicians are being targeted in such a way. Dr. Weiss responded to an inquiry sent to the American Hospital Association for this story.

“As the authority for peer review rests with the organized medical staff (i.e., physicians), and not formally with the hospital per se, the peer review lever is not typically available as a management tool for hospital administration,” said Dr. Weiss, who is a former member of the AHA’s Committee on Clinical Leadership, but who was speaking on behalf of himself.

A spokesman for the AHA said the organization stands behinds Dr. Weiss’ comments.

Peer review remains a foundational aspect of overseeing the safety and appropriateness of healthcare provided by physicians, Dr. Weiss said. Peer review likely varies from hospital to hospital, he added, although the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act provides some level of guidance as does the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics (section 9.4.1).

“In essence, both require that the evaluation be conducted in good faith with the intention to improve care, by physicians with adequate training and knowledge, using a process that is fair and inclusive of the physician under review,” he said. “I believe that most medical staffs abide by these ethical principles, but we have little data to confirm this supposition.”
 

Did hospital target doc for being vocal?

When members of Methodist’s medical staff first approached Dr. Smith with concerns about his surgery outcomes in November 2018, the physician says he was surprised, but that he was open to an assessment.

“They came to me and said they thought my numbers were bad, and I said: ‘Well my gosh, I certainly don’t want that to be the case. I need to see what numbers you are talking about,’ ” Dr. Smith recalled. “I’ve been president of the Bexar County Medical Society; I’ve been involved with standards and ethics for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Quality health care means a whole lot to me.”

The statistical information provided by hospital administrators indicated that Dr. Smith’s mortality rates for coronary artery surgery in 2018 were “excessive” and that his rates for aortic surgery were “unacceptable,” according to a lawsuit Dr. Smith filed against the hospital system. Dr. Smith, who is double boarded with the American Board of Surgery and the American Board of Thoracic Surgery, said his outcomes had never come into question in the past. Dr. Smith said the timing was suspicious to him, however, considering he had recently raised concerns with the hospital through letters about nursing performance, staffing, and compensation.

A peer review investigation was initiated. In the meantime, Dr. Smith agreed to intensivist consults on his postoperative patients and consults with the hospital’s “Heart Team” on all preoperative cardiac, valve, and aortic cases. A vocal critic of the Heart Team, Dr. Smith had long contended the entity provided no meaningful benefit to his patients in most cases and, rather, increased hospital stays and raised medical expenses. Despite his agreement, Dr. Smith was later asked to voluntarily stop performing surgeries at the hospital.

“I agreed, convinced that we’d get this all settled,” he said.

Another report issued by the hospital in 2019 also indicated elevated mortality rates associated with some of Smith’s surgeries, although the document differed from the first report, according to the lawsuit. Dr. Smith says he was ignored when he pointed out problems with the data, including a lack of appropriate risk stratification in the report, departure from Society of Thoracic Surgeons data rules, and improper inclusion of his cases in the denominator of the ratio when a comparison was made of his outcomes with those hospitalwide. A subsequent report from Methodist in March 2019 indicated Dr. Smith’s surgery outcomes were “within the expected parameters of performance,” according to court documents.

The surgery accusations were dropped, but the peer review proceeding against Dr. Smith wasn’t over. The hospital next requested that Dr. Smith undergo a competency evaluation.

“When they realized the data was bad, they then changed their argument in the peer review proceeding and essentially started to argue that Dr. Smith had some sort of cognitive disability that prevented him from continuing to practice,” said Mr. Pullen. “The way I look at it, when the initial basis for the peer review was proven false, the hospital found something else and some other reason to try to keep Dr. Smith from practicing.”

Thus began a lengthy disagreement about which entity would conduct the evaluation, who would pay, and the type of acceptable assessment. An evaluation by the hospital’s preferred organization resulted in a finding of mild cognitive impairment, Dr. Smith said. He hired his own experts who conducted separate evaluations, finding no impairment and no basis for the former evaluation’s conclusion.

“Literally, the determinant as to whether I was normal or below normal on their test was one point, which was associated with a finding that I didn’t draw a clock correctly,” Dr. Smith claimed. “The reviewer said my minute hand was a little too short and docked me a point. It was purely subjective. To me, the gold standard of whether you are learned in thoracic surgery is the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s test. The board’s test shows my cognitive ability is entirely in keeping with my practice. That contrasts with the one point off I got for drawing a clock wrong in somebody’s estimation.”
 

Conflict leads to legal case

In September 2020, Dr. Smith filed a lawsuit against Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, alleging business disparagement by Methodist for allegedly publishing false and disparaging information about Dr. Smith and tortious interference with business relations. The latter claim stems from Methodist refusing to provide documents to other hospitals about the status of Dr. Smith’s privileges at Methodist, Mr. Pullen said.

Because Methodist refused to confirm his status, the renewal process for Baptist Health System could not be completed and Dr. Smith lost his privileges at Baptist Health System facilities, according to the lawsuit.

Notably, Dr. Smith’s legal challenge also asks the court to take a stance against alleged amendments by Methodist to its Unified Medical Staff Bylaws. The hospital allegedly proposed changes that would prevent physicians from seeking legal action against the hospital for malicious peer review, according to Dr. Smith’s lawsuit.

The amendments would make the peer review process itself the “sole and exclusive remedy with respect to any action or recommendation taken at the hospital affecting medical staff appointment and/or clinical privileges,” according to an excerpt of the proposed amendments included in Dr. Smith’s lawsuit. In addition, the changes would hold practitioners liable for lost revenues if the doctor initiates “any type of legal action challenging credentialing, privileging, or other medical peer review or professional review activity,” according to the lawsuit.

Dr. Smith’s lawsuit seeks a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws are “void as against public policy,” and a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws cannot take away physicians’ statutory right to bring litigation against Methodist for malicious peer review.

“The proposed amendments have a tendency to and will injure the public good,” Dr. Smith argued in the lawsuit. “The proposed amendments allow Methodist to act with malice and in bad faith in conducting peer review proceedings and face no legal repercussions.”

Regardless of the final outcome of the peer review proceeding, Mr. Pullen said the harm Dr. Smith has already endured cannot be reversed.

“Even if comes out in his favor, the damage is already done,” he said. “It will not remedy the damage Dr. Smith has incurred.”
 

Fighting sham peer review is difficult

Battling a malicious peer review has long been an uphill battle for physicians, according to Dr. Huntoon. That’s because the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), a federal law passed in 1986, provides near absolute immunity to hospitals and peer reviewers in legal disputes.

The HCQIA was created by Congress to extend immunity to good-faith peer review of doctors and to increase overall participation in peer review by removing fear of litigation. However, the act has also enabled abuse of peer review by shielding bad-faith reviewers from accountability, said Dr. Huntoon.

“The Health Care Quality Improvement Act presumes that what the hospital did was warranted and reasonable and shifts the burden to the physician to prove his innocence by a preponderance of evidence,” he said. “That’s an entirely foreign concept to most people who think a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Here, it’s the exact opposite.”

The HCQIA has been challenged numerous times over the years and tested at the appellate level, but continues to survive and remain settled law, added Richard B. Willner, DPM, founder and director of the Center for Peer Review Justice, which assists and counsels physicians about sham peer review.

In 2011, former Rep. Joe Heck, DO, (R-Nev.) introduced a bill that would have amended the HCQIA to prohibit a professional review entity from submitting a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) while the doctor was still under investigation and before the doctor was afforded adequate notice and a hearing. Although the measure had 16 cosponsors and plenty of support from the physician community, it failed.

In addition to a heavy legal burden, physicians who experience malicious peer reviews also face ramifications from being reported to the NPDB. Peer review organizations are required to report certain negative actions or findings to the NPDB.

“A databank entry is a scarlet letter on your forehead,” Dr. Willner said. “The rules at a lot of institutions are not to take anyone who has been databanked, rightfully or wrongfully. And what is the evidence necessary to databank you? None. There’s no evidence needed to databank somebody.”

Despite the bleak landscape, experts say progress has been made on a case-by-case basis by physicians who have succeeded in fighting back against questionable peer reviews in recent years.

In January 2020, Indiana ob.gyn. Rebecca Denman, MD, prevailed in her defamation lawsuit against St Vincent Carmel Hospital and St Vincent Carmel Medical Group, winning $4.75 million in damages. Dr. Denman alleged administrators failed to conduct a proper peer review investigation after a false allegation by a nurse that she was under the influence while on the job.

Indianapolis attorney Kathleen A. DeLaney, who represented Dr. Denman, said hospital leaders misled Dr. Denman into believing a peer review had occurred when no formal peer review hearing or proceeding took place.

“The CMO of the medical group claimed that he performed a peer review ‘screening,’ but he never informed the other members of the peer review executive committee of the matter until after he had placed Dr. Denman on administrative leave,” Ms. DeLaney said. “He also neglected to tell the peer review executive committee that the substance abuse policy had not been followed, or that Dr. Denman had not been tested for alcohol use – due to the 12-hour delay in report.”

Dr. Denman was ultimately required to undergo an alcohol abuse evaluation, enter a treatment program, and sign a 5-year monitoring contract with the Indiana State Medical Association as a condition of her employment, according to the lawsuit. She claimed repercussions from the false allegation resulted in lost compensation, out-of-pocket expenses, emotional distress, and damage to her professional reputation.

She sued the hospital in July 2018, alleging fraud, defamation, tortious interference with an employment relationship, and negligent misrepresentation. After a 4-day trial, jurors found in her favor, awarding Dr. Denman $2 million for her defamation claims, $2 million for her claims of fraud and constructive fraud, $500,000 for her claim of tortious interference with an employment relationship, and $250,000 for her claim of negligent misrepresentation.

A hospital spokesperson said Ascension St Vincent is pursuing an appeal, and that it looks “forward to the opportunity to bring this matter before the Indiana Court of Appeals in June.”

In another case, South Dakota surgeon Linda Miller, MD, was awarded $1.1 million in 2017 after a federal jury found Huron Regional Medical Center breached her contract and violated her due process rights. Dr. Miller became the subject of a peer review at Huron Regional Medical Center when the hospital began analyzing some of her surgery outcomes.

Ken Barker, an attorney for Dr. Miller, said he feels it became evident at trial that the campaign to force Dr. Miller to either resign or lose her privileges was led by the lay board of directors of the hospital and upper-level administration at the hospital.

“They began the process by ordering an unprecedented 90-day review of her medical charts, looking for errors in the medical care she provided patients,” he said. “They could find nothing, so they did a second 90-day review, waiting for a patient’s ‘bad outcome.’ As any general surgeon will say, a ‘bad outcome’ is inevitable. And so it was. Upon that occurrence, they had a medical review committee review the patient’s chart and use it as an excuse to force her to reduce her privileges. Unbeknown to Dr. Miller, an external review had been conducted on another patient’s chart, in which the external review found her care above the standards and, in some measure, ‘exemplary.’ ”

Dr. Miller was eventually pressured to resign, according to her claim. Because of reports made to the NPDB by the medical center, including a patient complication that was allegedly falsified by the hospital, Dr. Miller said she was unable to find work as a general surgeon and went to work as a wound care doctor. At trial, jurors awarded Dr. Miller $586,617 in lost wages, $343,640 for lost future earning capacity, and $250,000 for mental anguish. (The mental anguish award was subsequently struck by a district court.)

Attorneys for Huron Regional Medical Center argued the jury improperly awarded damages and requested a new trial, which was denied by an appeals court.

In the end, the evidence came to light and the jury’s verdict spoke loudly that the hospital had taken unfair advantage of Dr. Miller, Mr. Barker said. But he emphasized that such cases often end differently.

“There are a handful of cases in which physicians like Dr. Miller have challenged the system and won,” he said. “In most cases, however, it is a ‘David vs. Goliath’ scenario where the giant prevails.”
 

What to do if faced with malicious peer review

An important step when doctors encounter a peer review that they believe is malicious is to consult with an experienced attorney as early as possible, Dr. Huntoon said. “Not all attorneys who set themselves out to be health law attorneys necessarily have knowledge and expertise in sham peer review. And before such a thing happens, I always encourage physicians to read their medical staff bylaws. That’s where everything is set forth, [such as] the corrective action section that tells how peer review is to take place.”

Mr. Barker added that documentation is also key in the event of a potential malicious peer review.

“When a physician senses [the] administration has targeted them, they should start documenting their conversations and actions very carefully, and if possible, recruit another ‘observer’ who can provide a third-party perspective, if necessary,” Mr. Barker said.

Dr. Huntoon recently wrote an article with advice about preparedness and defense of sham peer reviews. The guidance includes that physicians educate themselves about the tactics used by some hospitals to conduct sham peer reviews and the factors that place doctors more at risk. Factors that may raise a doctor’s danger of being targeted include being in solo practice or a small group, being new on staff, or being an older physician approaching retirement as some bad-actor hospitals may view older physicians as being less likely to fight back, said Dr. Huntoon.

Doctors should also keep detailed records and a timeline in the event of a malicious peer review and insist that an independent court reporter record all peer review hearings, even if that means the physician has to pay for the reporter him or herself, according to the guidance. An independent record is invaluable should the physician ultimately issue a future legal challenge against the hospital.

Mr. Willner encourages physicians to call the Center for Peer Review Justice hotline at (504) 621-1670 or visit the website for help with peer review and NPDB issues.

As for Dr. Smith, his days are much quieter and slower today, compared with the active practice he was accustomed to for more than half his life. He misses the fast pace, the patients, and the work that always brought him great joy.

“I hope to get back to doing surgeries eventually,” he said. “I graduated medical school in 1972. Practicing surgery has been my whole life and my career. They have taken my identity and my livelihood away from me based on false numbers and false premises. I want it back.”

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

Cardiothoracic surgeon J. Marvin Smith III, MD, had always thrived on a busy practice schedule, often performing 20-30 surgeries a week. A practicing surgeon for more than 40 years, Dr. Smith said he had no plans to slow down anytime soon.

But Dr. Smith said his career was derailed when leaders at Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio initiated a sudden peer review proceeding against him. The hospital system alleged certain surgeries performed by Dr. Smith had excessive mortality rates. When he proved the data inaccurate, Dr. Smith said administrators next claimed he was cognitively impaired and wasn’t safe to practice.

Dr. Smith has now been embroiled in a peer review dispute with the hospital system for more than 2 years and says the conflict has essentially forced him out of surgical practice. He believes the peer review was “malicious” and was really launched because of complaints he made about nurse staffing and other issues at the hospital.

“I think it is absolutely in bad faith and is disingenuous what they’ve told me along the way,” said Dr. Smith, 73. “It’s because I pointed out deficiencies in nursing care, and they want to get rid of me. It would be a lot easier for them if I had a contract and they could control me better. But the fact that I was independent, meant they had to resort to a malicious peer review to try and push me out.”

Dr. Smith had a peer review hearing with Methodist in March 2021, and in April, a panel found in Dr. Smith’s favor, according to Dr. Smith. The findings were sent to the hospital’s medical board for review, which issued a decision in early May.

Eric A. Pullen, an attorney for Dr. Smith, said he could not go into detail about the board’s decision for legal reasons, but that “the medical board’s decision did not completely resolve the matter, and Dr. Smith intends to exercise his procedural rights, which could include an appeal.”

Methodist Hospital Texsan and its parent company, Methodist Health System of San Antonio, did not respond to messages seeking comment about the case. Without hearing from the hospital system, its side is unknown and it is unclear if there is more to the story from Methodist’s view.

Malicious peer review – also called sham peer review – is defined as misusing the medical peer review process for malevolent purposes, such as to silence or to remove a physician. The problem is not new, but some experts, such as Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, say the practice has become more common in recent years, particularly against independent doctors.

Dr. Huntoon believes there is a nationwide trend at many hospitals to get rid of independent physicians and replace them with employed doctors, he said.

However, because most sham peer reviews go on behind closed doors, there are no data to pinpoint its prevalence or measure its growth.

“Independent physicians are basically being purged from medical staffs across the United States,” said Dr. Huntoon, who is chair of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons’ Committee to Combat Sham Peer Review. “The hospitals want more control over how physicians practice and who they refer to, and they do that by having employees.”

Anthony P. Weiss, MD, MBA, chief medical officer for Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center said it has not been his experience that independent physicians are being targeted in such a way. Dr. Weiss responded to an inquiry sent to the American Hospital Association for this story.

“As the authority for peer review rests with the organized medical staff (i.e., physicians), and not formally with the hospital per se, the peer review lever is not typically available as a management tool for hospital administration,” said Dr. Weiss, who is a former member of the AHA’s Committee on Clinical Leadership, but who was speaking on behalf of himself.

A spokesman for the AHA said the organization stands behinds Dr. Weiss’ comments.

Peer review remains a foundational aspect of overseeing the safety and appropriateness of healthcare provided by physicians, Dr. Weiss said. Peer review likely varies from hospital to hospital, he added, although the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act provides some level of guidance as does the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics (section 9.4.1).

“In essence, both require that the evaluation be conducted in good faith with the intention to improve care, by physicians with adequate training and knowledge, using a process that is fair and inclusive of the physician under review,” he said. “I believe that most medical staffs abide by these ethical principles, but we have little data to confirm this supposition.”
 

Did hospital target doc for being vocal?

When members of Methodist’s medical staff first approached Dr. Smith with concerns about his surgery outcomes in November 2018, the physician says he was surprised, but that he was open to an assessment.

“They came to me and said they thought my numbers were bad, and I said: ‘Well my gosh, I certainly don’t want that to be the case. I need to see what numbers you are talking about,’ ” Dr. Smith recalled. “I’ve been president of the Bexar County Medical Society; I’ve been involved with standards and ethics for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Quality health care means a whole lot to me.”

The statistical information provided by hospital administrators indicated that Dr. Smith’s mortality rates for coronary artery surgery in 2018 were “excessive” and that his rates for aortic surgery were “unacceptable,” according to a lawsuit Dr. Smith filed against the hospital system. Dr. Smith, who is double boarded with the American Board of Surgery and the American Board of Thoracic Surgery, said his outcomes had never come into question in the past. Dr. Smith said the timing was suspicious to him, however, considering he had recently raised concerns with the hospital through letters about nursing performance, staffing, and compensation.

A peer review investigation was initiated. In the meantime, Dr. Smith agreed to intensivist consults on his postoperative patients and consults with the hospital’s “Heart Team” on all preoperative cardiac, valve, and aortic cases. A vocal critic of the Heart Team, Dr. Smith had long contended the entity provided no meaningful benefit to his patients in most cases and, rather, increased hospital stays and raised medical expenses. Despite his agreement, Dr. Smith was later asked to voluntarily stop performing surgeries at the hospital.

“I agreed, convinced that we’d get this all settled,” he said.

Another report issued by the hospital in 2019 also indicated elevated mortality rates associated with some of Smith’s surgeries, although the document differed from the first report, according to the lawsuit. Dr. Smith says he was ignored when he pointed out problems with the data, including a lack of appropriate risk stratification in the report, departure from Society of Thoracic Surgeons data rules, and improper inclusion of his cases in the denominator of the ratio when a comparison was made of his outcomes with those hospitalwide. A subsequent report from Methodist in March 2019 indicated Dr. Smith’s surgery outcomes were “within the expected parameters of performance,” according to court documents.

The surgery accusations were dropped, but the peer review proceeding against Dr. Smith wasn’t over. The hospital next requested that Dr. Smith undergo a competency evaluation.

“When they realized the data was bad, they then changed their argument in the peer review proceeding and essentially started to argue that Dr. Smith had some sort of cognitive disability that prevented him from continuing to practice,” said Mr. Pullen. “The way I look at it, when the initial basis for the peer review was proven false, the hospital found something else and some other reason to try to keep Dr. Smith from practicing.”

Thus began a lengthy disagreement about which entity would conduct the evaluation, who would pay, and the type of acceptable assessment. An evaluation by the hospital’s preferred organization resulted in a finding of mild cognitive impairment, Dr. Smith said. He hired his own experts who conducted separate evaluations, finding no impairment and no basis for the former evaluation’s conclusion.

“Literally, the determinant as to whether I was normal or below normal on their test was one point, which was associated with a finding that I didn’t draw a clock correctly,” Dr. Smith claimed. “The reviewer said my minute hand was a little too short and docked me a point. It was purely subjective. To me, the gold standard of whether you are learned in thoracic surgery is the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s test. The board’s test shows my cognitive ability is entirely in keeping with my practice. That contrasts with the one point off I got for drawing a clock wrong in somebody’s estimation.”
 

Conflict leads to legal case

In September 2020, Dr. Smith filed a lawsuit against Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, alleging business disparagement by Methodist for allegedly publishing false and disparaging information about Dr. Smith and tortious interference with business relations. The latter claim stems from Methodist refusing to provide documents to other hospitals about the status of Dr. Smith’s privileges at Methodist, Mr. Pullen said.

Because Methodist refused to confirm his status, the renewal process for Baptist Health System could not be completed and Dr. Smith lost his privileges at Baptist Health System facilities, according to the lawsuit.

Notably, Dr. Smith’s legal challenge also asks the court to take a stance against alleged amendments by Methodist to its Unified Medical Staff Bylaws. The hospital allegedly proposed changes that would prevent physicians from seeking legal action against the hospital for malicious peer review, according to Dr. Smith’s lawsuit.

The amendments would make the peer review process itself the “sole and exclusive remedy with respect to any action or recommendation taken at the hospital affecting medical staff appointment and/or clinical privileges,” according to an excerpt of the proposed amendments included in Dr. Smith’s lawsuit. In addition, the changes would hold practitioners liable for lost revenues if the doctor initiates “any type of legal action challenging credentialing, privileging, or other medical peer review or professional review activity,” according to the lawsuit.

Dr. Smith’s lawsuit seeks a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws are “void as against public policy,” and a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws cannot take away physicians’ statutory right to bring litigation against Methodist for malicious peer review.

“The proposed amendments have a tendency to and will injure the public good,” Dr. Smith argued in the lawsuit. “The proposed amendments allow Methodist to act with malice and in bad faith in conducting peer review proceedings and face no legal repercussions.”

Regardless of the final outcome of the peer review proceeding, Mr. Pullen said the harm Dr. Smith has already endured cannot be reversed.

“Even if comes out in his favor, the damage is already done,” he said. “It will not remedy the damage Dr. Smith has incurred.”
 

Fighting sham peer review is difficult

Battling a malicious peer review has long been an uphill battle for physicians, according to Dr. Huntoon. That’s because the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), a federal law passed in 1986, provides near absolute immunity to hospitals and peer reviewers in legal disputes.

The HCQIA was created by Congress to extend immunity to good-faith peer review of doctors and to increase overall participation in peer review by removing fear of litigation. However, the act has also enabled abuse of peer review by shielding bad-faith reviewers from accountability, said Dr. Huntoon.

“The Health Care Quality Improvement Act presumes that what the hospital did was warranted and reasonable and shifts the burden to the physician to prove his innocence by a preponderance of evidence,” he said. “That’s an entirely foreign concept to most people who think a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Here, it’s the exact opposite.”

The HCQIA has been challenged numerous times over the years and tested at the appellate level, but continues to survive and remain settled law, added Richard B. Willner, DPM, founder and director of the Center for Peer Review Justice, which assists and counsels physicians about sham peer review.

In 2011, former Rep. Joe Heck, DO, (R-Nev.) introduced a bill that would have amended the HCQIA to prohibit a professional review entity from submitting a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) while the doctor was still under investigation and before the doctor was afforded adequate notice and a hearing. Although the measure had 16 cosponsors and plenty of support from the physician community, it failed.

In addition to a heavy legal burden, physicians who experience malicious peer reviews also face ramifications from being reported to the NPDB. Peer review organizations are required to report certain negative actions or findings to the NPDB.

“A databank entry is a scarlet letter on your forehead,” Dr. Willner said. “The rules at a lot of institutions are not to take anyone who has been databanked, rightfully or wrongfully. And what is the evidence necessary to databank you? None. There’s no evidence needed to databank somebody.”

Despite the bleak landscape, experts say progress has been made on a case-by-case basis by physicians who have succeeded in fighting back against questionable peer reviews in recent years.

In January 2020, Indiana ob.gyn. Rebecca Denman, MD, prevailed in her defamation lawsuit against St Vincent Carmel Hospital and St Vincent Carmel Medical Group, winning $4.75 million in damages. Dr. Denman alleged administrators failed to conduct a proper peer review investigation after a false allegation by a nurse that she was under the influence while on the job.

Indianapolis attorney Kathleen A. DeLaney, who represented Dr. Denman, said hospital leaders misled Dr. Denman into believing a peer review had occurred when no formal peer review hearing or proceeding took place.

“The CMO of the medical group claimed that he performed a peer review ‘screening,’ but he never informed the other members of the peer review executive committee of the matter until after he had placed Dr. Denman on administrative leave,” Ms. DeLaney said. “He also neglected to tell the peer review executive committee that the substance abuse policy had not been followed, or that Dr. Denman had not been tested for alcohol use – due to the 12-hour delay in report.”

Dr. Denman was ultimately required to undergo an alcohol abuse evaluation, enter a treatment program, and sign a 5-year monitoring contract with the Indiana State Medical Association as a condition of her employment, according to the lawsuit. She claimed repercussions from the false allegation resulted in lost compensation, out-of-pocket expenses, emotional distress, and damage to her professional reputation.

She sued the hospital in July 2018, alleging fraud, defamation, tortious interference with an employment relationship, and negligent misrepresentation. After a 4-day trial, jurors found in her favor, awarding Dr. Denman $2 million for her defamation claims, $2 million for her claims of fraud and constructive fraud, $500,000 for her claim of tortious interference with an employment relationship, and $250,000 for her claim of negligent misrepresentation.

A hospital spokesperson said Ascension St Vincent is pursuing an appeal, and that it looks “forward to the opportunity to bring this matter before the Indiana Court of Appeals in June.”

In another case, South Dakota surgeon Linda Miller, MD, was awarded $1.1 million in 2017 after a federal jury found Huron Regional Medical Center breached her contract and violated her due process rights. Dr. Miller became the subject of a peer review at Huron Regional Medical Center when the hospital began analyzing some of her surgery outcomes.

Ken Barker, an attorney for Dr. Miller, said he feels it became evident at trial that the campaign to force Dr. Miller to either resign or lose her privileges was led by the lay board of directors of the hospital and upper-level administration at the hospital.

“They began the process by ordering an unprecedented 90-day review of her medical charts, looking for errors in the medical care she provided patients,” he said. “They could find nothing, so they did a second 90-day review, waiting for a patient’s ‘bad outcome.’ As any general surgeon will say, a ‘bad outcome’ is inevitable. And so it was. Upon that occurrence, they had a medical review committee review the patient’s chart and use it as an excuse to force her to reduce her privileges. Unbeknown to Dr. Miller, an external review had been conducted on another patient’s chart, in which the external review found her care above the standards and, in some measure, ‘exemplary.’ ”

Dr. Miller was eventually pressured to resign, according to her claim. Because of reports made to the NPDB by the medical center, including a patient complication that was allegedly falsified by the hospital, Dr. Miller said she was unable to find work as a general surgeon and went to work as a wound care doctor. At trial, jurors awarded Dr. Miller $586,617 in lost wages, $343,640 for lost future earning capacity, and $250,000 for mental anguish. (The mental anguish award was subsequently struck by a district court.)

Attorneys for Huron Regional Medical Center argued the jury improperly awarded damages and requested a new trial, which was denied by an appeals court.

In the end, the evidence came to light and the jury’s verdict spoke loudly that the hospital had taken unfair advantage of Dr. Miller, Mr. Barker said. But he emphasized that such cases often end differently.

“There are a handful of cases in which physicians like Dr. Miller have challenged the system and won,” he said. “In most cases, however, it is a ‘David vs. Goliath’ scenario where the giant prevails.”
 

What to do if faced with malicious peer review

An important step when doctors encounter a peer review that they believe is malicious is to consult with an experienced attorney as early as possible, Dr. Huntoon said. “Not all attorneys who set themselves out to be health law attorneys necessarily have knowledge and expertise in sham peer review. And before such a thing happens, I always encourage physicians to read their medical staff bylaws. That’s where everything is set forth, [such as] the corrective action section that tells how peer review is to take place.”

Mr. Barker added that documentation is also key in the event of a potential malicious peer review.

“When a physician senses [the] administration has targeted them, they should start documenting their conversations and actions very carefully, and if possible, recruit another ‘observer’ who can provide a third-party perspective, if necessary,” Mr. Barker said.

Dr. Huntoon recently wrote an article with advice about preparedness and defense of sham peer reviews. The guidance includes that physicians educate themselves about the tactics used by some hospitals to conduct sham peer reviews and the factors that place doctors more at risk. Factors that may raise a doctor’s danger of being targeted include being in solo practice or a small group, being new on staff, or being an older physician approaching retirement as some bad-actor hospitals may view older physicians as being less likely to fight back, said Dr. Huntoon.

Doctors should also keep detailed records and a timeline in the event of a malicious peer review and insist that an independent court reporter record all peer review hearings, even if that means the physician has to pay for the reporter him or herself, according to the guidance. An independent record is invaluable should the physician ultimately issue a future legal challenge against the hospital.

Mr. Willner encourages physicians to call the Center for Peer Review Justice hotline at (504) 621-1670 or visit the website for help with peer review and NPDB issues.

As for Dr. Smith, his days are much quieter and slower today, compared with the active practice he was accustomed to for more than half his life. He misses the fast pace, the patients, and the work that always brought him great joy.

“I hope to get back to doing surgeries eventually,” he said. “I graduated medical school in 1972. Practicing surgery has been my whole life and my career. They have taken my identity and my livelihood away from me based on false numbers and false premises. I want it back.”

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

Cardiothoracic surgeon J. Marvin Smith III, MD, had always thrived on a busy practice schedule, often performing 20-30 surgeries a week. A practicing surgeon for more than 40 years, Dr. Smith said he had no plans to slow down anytime soon.

But Dr. Smith said his career was derailed when leaders at Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio initiated a sudden peer review proceeding against him. The hospital system alleged certain surgeries performed by Dr. Smith had excessive mortality rates. When he proved the data inaccurate, Dr. Smith said administrators next claimed he was cognitively impaired and wasn’t safe to practice.

Dr. Smith has now been embroiled in a peer review dispute with the hospital system for more than 2 years and says the conflict has essentially forced him out of surgical practice. He believes the peer review was “malicious” and was really launched because of complaints he made about nurse staffing and other issues at the hospital.

“I think it is absolutely in bad faith and is disingenuous what they’ve told me along the way,” said Dr. Smith, 73. “It’s because I pointed out deficiencies in nursing care, and they want to get rid of me. It would be a lot easier for them if I had a contract and they could control me better. But the fact that I was independent, meant they had to resort to a malicious peer review to try and push me out.”

Dr. Smith had a peer review hearing with Methodist in March 2021, and in April, a panel found in Dr. Smith’s favor, according to Dr. Smith. The findings were sent to the hospital’s medical board for review, which issued a decision in early May.

Eric A. Pullen, an attorney for Dr. Smith, said he could not go into detail about the board’s decision for legal reasons, but that “the medical board’s decision did not completely resolve the matter, and Dr. Smith intends to exercise his procedural rights, which could include an appeal.”

Methodist Hospital Texsan and its parent company, Methodist Health System of San Antonio, did not respond to messages seeking comment about the case. Without hearing from the hospital system, its side is unknown and it is unclear if there is more to the story from Methodist’s view.

Malicious peer review – also called sham peer review – is defined as misusing the medical peer review process for malevolent purposes, such as to silence or to remove a physician. The problem is not new, but some experts, such as Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, say the practice has become more common in recent years, particularly against independent doctors.

Dr. Huntoon believes there is a nationwide trend at many hospitals to get rid of independent physicians and replace them with employed doctors, he said.

However, because most sham peer reviews go on behind closed doors, there are no data to pinpoint its prevalence or measure its growth.

“Independent physicians are basically being purged from medical staffs across the United States,” said Dr. Huntoon, who is chair of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons’ Committee to Combat Sham Peer Review. “The hospitals want more control over how physicians practice and who they refer to, and they do that by having employees.”

Anthony P. Weiss, MD, MBA, chief medical officer for Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center said it has not been his experience that independent physicians are being targeted in such a way. Dr. Weiss responded to an inquiry sent to the American Hospital Association for this story.

“As the authority for peer review rests with the organized medical staff (i.e., physicians), and not formally with the hospital per se, the peer review lever is not typically available as a management tool for hospital administration,” said Dr. Weiss, who is a former member of the AHA’s Committee on Clinical Leadership, but who was speaking on behalf of himself.

A spokesman for the AHA said the organization stands behinds Dr. Weiss’ comments.

Peer review remains a foundational aspect of overseeing the safety and appropriateness of healthcare provided by physicians, Dr. Weiss said. Peer review likely varies from hospital to hospital, he added, although the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act provides some level of guidance as does the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics (section 9.4.1).

“In essence, both require that the evaluation be conducted in good faith with the intention to improve care, by physicians with adequate training and knowledge, using a process that is fair and inclusive of the physician under review,” he said. “I believe that most medical staffs abide by these ethical principles, but we have little data to confirm this supposition.”
 

Did hospital target doc for being vocal?

When members of Methodist’s medical staff first approached Dr. Smith with concerns about his surgery outcomes in November 2018, the physician says he was surprised, but that he was open to an assessment.

“They came to me and said they thought my numbers were bad, and I said: ‘Well my gosh, I certainly don’t want that to be the case. I need to see what numbers you are talking about,’ ” Dr. Smith recalled. “I’ve been president of the Bexar County Medical Society; I’ve been involved with standards and ethics for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Quality health care means a whole lot to me.”

The statistical information provided by hospital administrators indicated that Dr. Smith’s mortality rates for coronary artery surgery in 2018 were “excessive” and that his rates for aortic surgery were “unacceptable,” according to a lawsuit Dr. Smith filed against the hospital system. Dr. Smith, who is double boarded with the American Board of Surgery and the American Board of Thoracic Surgery, said his outcomes had never come into question in the past. Dr. Smith said the timing was suspicious to him, however, considering he had recently raised concerns with the hospital through letters about nursing performance, staffing, and compensation.

A peer review investigation was initiated. In the meantime, Dr. Smith agreed to intensivist consults on his postoperative patients and consults with the hospital’s “Heart Team” on all preoperative cardiac, valve, and aortic cases. A vocal critic of the Heart Team, Dr. Smith had long contended the entity provided no meaningful benefit to his patients in most cases and, rather, increased hospital stays and raised medical expenses. Despite his agreement, Dr. Smith was later asked to voluntarily stop performing surgeries at the hospital.

“I agreed, convinced that we’d get this all settled,” he said.

Another report issued by the hospital in 2019 also indicated elevated mortality rates associated with some of Smith’s surgeries, although the document differed from the first report, according to the lawsuit. Dr. Smith says he was ignored when he pointed out problems with the data, including a lack of appropriate risk stratification in the report, departure from Society of Thoracic Surgeons data rules, and improper inclusion of his cases in the denominator of the ratio when a comparison was made of his outcomes with those hospitalwide. A subsequent report from Methodist in March 2019 indicated Dr. Smith’s surgery outcomes were “within the expected parameters of performance,” according to court documents.

The surgery accusations were dropped, but the peer review proceeding against Dr. Smith wasn’t over. The hospital next requested that Dr. Smith undergo a competency evaluation.

“When they realized the data was bad, they then changed their argument in the peer review proceeding and essentially started to argue that Dr. Smith had some sort of cognitive disability that prevented him from continuing to practice,” said Mr. Pullen. “The way I look at it, when the initial basis for the peer review was proven false, the hospital found something else and some other reason to try to keep Dr. Smith from practicing.”

Thus began a lengthy disagreement about which entity would conduct the evaluation, who would pay, and the type of acceptable assessment. An evaluation by the hospital’s preferred organization resulted in a finding of mild cognitive impairment, Dr. Smith said. He hired his own experts who conducted separate evaluations, finding no impairment and no basis for the former evaluation’s conclusion.

“Literally, the determinant as to whether I was normal or below normal on their test was one point, which was associated with a finding that I didn’t draw a clock correctly,” Dr. Smith claimed. “The reviewer said my minute hand was a little too short and docked me a point. It was purely subjective. To me, the gold standard of whether you are learned in thoracic surgery is the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s test. The board’s test shows my cognitive ability is entirely in keeping with my practice. That contrasts with the one point off I got for drawing a clock wrong in somebody’s estimation.”
 

Conflict leads to legal case

In September 2020, Dr. Smith filed a lawsuit against Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, alleging business disparagement by Methodist for allegedly publishing false and disparaging information about Dr. Smith and tortious interference with business relations. The latter claim stems from Methodist refusing to provide documents to other hospitals about the status of Dr. Smith’s privileges at Methodist, Mr. Pullen said.

Because Methodist refused to confirm his status, the renewal process for Baptist Health System could not be completed and Dr. Smith lost his privileges at Baptist Health System facilities, according to the lawsuit.

Notably, Dr. Smith’s legal challenge also asks the court to take a stance against alleged amendments by Methodist to its Unified Medical Staff Bylaws. The hospital allegedly proposed changes that would prevent physicians from seeking legal action against the hospital for malicious peer review, according to Dr. Smith’s lawsuit.

The amendments would make the peer review process itself the “sole and exclusive remedy with respect to any action or recommendation taken at the hospital affecting medical staff appointment and/or clinical privileges,” according to an excerpt of the proposed amendments included in Dr. Smith’s lawsuit. In addition, the changes would hold practitioners liable for lost revenues if the doctor initiates “any type of legal action challenging credentialing, privileging, or other medical peer review or professional review activity,” according to the lawsuit.

Dr. Smith’s lawsuit seeks a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws are “void as against public policy,” and a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws cannot take away physicians’ statutory right to bring litigation against Methodist for malicious peer review.

“The proposed amendments have a tendency to and will injure the public good,” Dr. Smith argued in the lawsuit. “The proposed amendments allow Methodist to act with malice and in bad faith in conducting peer review proceedings and face no legal repercussions.”

Regardless of the final outcome of the peer review proceeding, Mr. Pullen said the harm Dr. Smith has already endured cannot be reversed.

“Even if comes out in his favor, the damage is already done,” he said. “It will not remedy the damage Dr. Smith has incurred.”
 

Fighting sham peer review is difficult

Battling a malicious peer review has long been an uphill battle for physicians, according to Dr. Huntoon. That’s because the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), a federal law passed in 1986, provides near absolute immunity to hospitals and peer reviewers in legal disputes.

The HCQIA was created by Congress to extend immunity to good-faith peer review of doctors and to increase overall participation in peer review by removing fear of litigation. However, the act has also enabled abuse of peer review by shielding bad-faith reviewers from accountability, said Dr. Huntoon.

“The Health Care Quality Improvement Act presumes that what the hospital did was warranted and reasonable and shifts the burden to the physician to prove his innocence by a preponderance of evidence,” he said. “That’s an entirely foreign concept to most people who think a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Here, it’s the exact opposite.”

The HCQIA has been challenged numerous times over the years and tested at the appellate level, but continues to survive and remain settled law, added Richard B. Willner, DPM, founder and director of the Center for Peer Review Justice, which assists and counsels physicians about sham peer review.

In 2011, former Rep. Joe Heck, DO, (R-Nev.) introduced a bill that would have amended the HCQIA to prohibit a professional review entity from submitting a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) while the doctor was still under investigation and before the doctor was afforded adequate notice and a hearing. Although the measure had 16 cosponsors and plenty of support from the physician community, it failed.

In addition to a heavy legal burden, physicians who experience malicious peer reviews also face ramifications from being reported to the NPDB. Peer review organizations are required to report certain negative actions or findings to the NPDB.

“A databank entry is a scarlet letter on your forehead,” Dr. Willner said. “The rules at a lot of institutions are not to take anyone who has been databanked, rightfully or wrongfully. And what is the evidence necessary to databank you? None. There’s no evidence needed to databank somebody.”

Despite the bleak landscape, experts say progress has been made on a case-by-case basis by physicians who have succeeded in fighting back against questionable peer reviews in recent years.

In January 2020, Indiana ob.gyn. Rebecca Denman, MD, prevailed in her defamation lawsuit against St Vincent Carmel Hospital and St Vincent Carmel Medical Group, winning $4.75 million in damages. Dr. Denman alleged administrators failed to conduct a proper peer review investigation after a false allegation by a nurse that she was under the influence while on the job.

Indianapolis attorney Kathleen A. DeLaney, who represented Dr. Denman, said hospital leaders misled Dr. Denman into believing a peer review had occurred when no formal peer review hearing or proceeding took place.

“The CMO of the medical group claimed that he performed a peer review ‘screening,’ but he never informed the other members of the peer review executive committee of the matter until after he had placed Dr. Denman on administrative leave,” Ms. DeLaney said. “He also neglected to tell the peer review executive committee that the substance abuse policy had not been followed, or that Dr. Denman had not been tested for alcohol use – due to the 12-hour delay in report.”

Dr. Denman was ultimately required to undergo an alcohol abuse evaluation, enter a treatment program, and sign a 5-year monitoring contract with the Indiana State Medical Association as a condition of her employment, according to the lawsuit. She claimed repercussions from the false allegation resulted in lost compensation, out-of-pocket expenses, emotional distress, and damage to her professional reputation.

She sued the hospital in July 2018, alleging fraud, defamation, tortious interference with an employment relationship, and negligent misrepresentation. After a 4-day trial, jurors found in her favor, awarding Dr. Denman $2 million for her defamation claims, $2 million for her claims of fraud and constructive fraud, $500,000 for her claim of tortious interference with an employment relationship, and $250,000 for her claim of negligent misrepresentation.

A hospital spokesperson said Ascension St Vincent is pursuing an appeal, and that it looks “forward to the opportunity to bring this matter before the Indiana Court of Appeals in June.”

In another case, South Dakota surgeon Linda Miller, MD, was awarded $1.1 million in 2017 after a federal jury found Huron Regional Medical Center breached her contract and violated her due process rights. Dr. Miller became the subject of a peer review at Huron Regional Medical Center when the hospital began analyzing some of her surgery outcomes.

Ken Barker, an attorney for Dr. Miller, said he feels it became evident at trial that the campaign to force Dr. Miller to either resign or lose her privileges was led by the lay board of directors of the hospital and upper-level administration at the hospital.

“They began the process by ordering an unprecedented 90-day review of her medical charts, looking for errors in the medical care she provided patients,” he said. “They could find nothing, so they did a second 90-day review, waiting for a patient’s ‘bad outcome.’ As any general surgeon will say, a ‘bad outcome’ is inevitable. And so it was. Upon that occurrence, they had a medical review committee review the patient’s chart and use it as an excuse to force her to reduce her privileges. Unbeknown to Dr. Miller, an external review had been conducted on another patient’s chart, in which the external review found her care above the standards and, in some measure, ‘exemplary.’ ”

Dr. Miller was eventually pressured to resign, according to her claim. Because of reports made to the NPDB by the medical center, including a patient complication that was allegedly falsified by the hospital, Dr. Miller said she was unable to find work as a general surgeon and went to work as a wound care doctor. At trial, jurors awarded Dr. Miller $586,617 in lost wages, $343,640 for lost future earning capacity, and $250,000 for mental anguish. (The mental anguish award was subsequently struck by a district court.)

Attorneys for Huron Regional Medical Center argued the jury improperly awarded damages and requested a new trial, which was denied by an appeals court.

In the end, the evidence came to light and the jury’s verdict spoke loudly that the hospital had taken unfair advantage of Dr. Miller, Mr. Barker said. But he emphasized that such cases often end differently.

“There are a handful of cases in which physicians like Dr. Miller have challenged the system and won,” he said. “In most cases, however, it is a ‘David vs. Goliath’ scenario where the giant prevails.”
 

What to do if faced with malicious peer review

An important step when doctors encounter a peer review that they believe is malicious is to consult with an experienced attorney as early as possible, Dr. Huntoon said. “Not all attorneys who set themselves out to be health law attorneys necessarily have knowledge and expertise in sham peer review. And before such a thing happens, I always encourage physicians to read their medical staff bylaws. That’s where everything is set forth, [such as] the corrective action section that tells how peer review is to take place.”

Mr. Barker added that documentation is also key in the event of a potential malicious peer review.

“When a physician senses [the] administration has targeted them, they should start documenting their conversations and actions very carefully, and if possible, recruit another ‘observer’ who can provide a third-party perspective, if necessary,” Mr. Barker said.

Dr. Huntoon recently wrote an article with advice about preparedness and defense of sham peer reviews. The guidance includes that physicians educate themselves about the tactics used by some hospitals to conduct sham peer reviews and the factors that place doctors more at risk. Factors that may raise a doctor’s danger of being targeted include being in solo practice or a small group, being new on staff, or being an older physician approaching retirement as some bad-actor hospitals may view older physicians as being less likely to fight back, said Dr. Huntoon.

Doctors should also keep detailed records and a timeline in the event of a malicious peer review and insist that an independent court reporter record all peer review hearings, even if that means the physician has to pay for the reporter him or herself, according to the guidance. An independent record is invaluable should the physician ultimately issue a future legal challenge against the hospital.

Mr. Willner encourages physicians to call the Center for Peer Review Justice hotline at (504) 621-1670 or visit the website for help with peer review and NPDB issues.

As for Dr. Smith, his days are much quieter and slower today, compared with the active practice he was accustomed to for more than half his life. He misses the fast pace, the patients, and the work that always brought him great joy.

“I hope to get back to doing surgeries eventually,” he said. “I graduated medical school in 1972. Practicing surgery has been my whole life and my career. They have taken my identity and my livelihood away from me based on false numbers and false premises. I want it back.”

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

New digital tools are on the horizon to help patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) manage the condition.

Rostislav_Sedlacek/Thinkstock

Speakers at the World Congress on ADHD – Virtual Event described innovations aimed at improving medication compliance or reducing symptoms through the use of smartphone technology such as apps and text messaging, and video games. Some of these technologies have shown promising results in clinical trials, but the experts called for additional studies to further vet their efficacy.

An explosion in technology

ADHD, the most common neurodevelopmental disorder, has global prevalence rates ranging from 5% to 7%, said Dr. Kirk. Digital technology and digital health “have been heralded as having enormous potential to improve early access and to improve the increasing demand in child support services,” she said.

The world has seen an explosion of digital technology innovation in the last decade, spurred on most recently by the COVID-19 pandemic. New demand exists for tools in educational and health care settings to provide information and support through websites, apps, SMS, video conferencing, and wearable devices, Dr. Kirk said.

Looking at the landscape of ADHD digital therapeutics, “there are probably tens of thousands of apps and other digital products to treat and manage conditions across the spectrum,” said Scott H. Kollins, PhD, MS, a clinical psychologist at Duke Health’s ADHD Clinic in Durham, N.C.

Video game interventions

AKL-T01, a tool that pairs continuous fine motor tasks and perceptual reaction time tasks, went through several rounds of clinical trials to achieve federal approval as a digital therapeutic.

“This not just another video game,” said Dr. Kollins, who helped developed it. The tool’s adaptive algorithms adjust and monitor task difficulty based on performance, using a video game format and rewards to engage users.

Two phase 3 trials provided the basis for the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of AKL-T01, also known as EndeavorRx, in 2020. The first trial, published in The Lancet, randomized 348 children 1:1 to receive either the AKL-T01 treatment or a controlled intervention, which was a word game. Participating children aged 8-12 with a confirmed ADHD diagnosis were asked to play the game for about 25 minutes a day, 5 days a week over 4 weeks. The study excluded children who were taking medicine.

The researchers reported statistically significant improvements in attentional functioning in the AKL-T01 group as rated by test of variables of attention. The trial reported no serious adverse events, although one child in the AKL-T01 group withdrew from the study.

“As kids go through this treatment, it’s challenging and the difficulty levels increase, so it’s not surprising that kids get frustrated with that, or have emotional outbursts,” Dr. Kollins said. Those reactions suggest that the intervention was working, he added.

A follow-up study, published in npj Digital Medicine, broadened the scope. That study included children who had taken medication and extended the study period. Overall, 206 children aged 8-14 (130 on stimulants and 76 on no medication) played the game for 28 days, taking a pause for another 28 days, then reinitiating the treatment.

As in the first trial, AKL-T01 significantly improved ADHD-related impairment, a metric that continued to improve in the second round of treatment. Looking at secondary outcomes, the proportion of children deemed as clinical responders on the Impairment Rating Scale, 68.3% of all of the participants were responders by the end of the study on the ADHD ratings scale, meaning there was a greater than 30% improvement in symptoms. Upward of 50% of participants at the end of the second round of treatment showed substantial improvement in their ADHD ratings scale scores.

“This was really a substantial move ... the first-ever app-based video game approved by the FDA,” noted Dr. Kollins, who is affiliated with the Duke Clinical Research Institute. Some skeptics have called this a marketing ploy or have questioned the integrity of the FDA approval process.

“I would submit and argue that the rigor of the trial speaks for itself,” he said. “But it’s not surprising that there’s skepticism in the clinical community about something like this – a brand new treatment modality.”

In her own research, Dr. Kirk has studied game-based interventions aimed at assessing ADHD and improving cognitive training. In 2018, her team developed a touch screen game–based intervention for early evaluation of attention skills, using six activities. In a visual search task, children were asked to locate red lobsters on a screen that showed a variety of underwater creatures. In another selection attention task, children were asked to scan the screen for a particular target, such as a yellow star, and to indicate whether that target was absent or present on the screen. Other tasks assessed for sustained attention abilities and information processing speed.

She and her colleagues recruited 340 children aged 4-7 years to evaluate whether the tool produced consistent results over time, and compared favorably to existing measures of attention. None of the participants had been diagnosed with ADHD. To assess reliability, a subset of children completed another assessment 2 weeks after the first one. The study showed varying results according to activity. The visual search task had high test-retest reliability and the strongest validity, compared with the other tasks. The sustained attention tasks exhibited the weakest validity.

The next steps are to assess whether this tool is sensitive enough to detect differences between children with or without clinical attention difficulties such as ADHD, Dr. Kirk said.

Apps improve adherence

As some technologies focus on reducing symptoms through games, others seek to improve medication compliance through SMS and smartphone apps.

Studies have shown that medication can decrease incidence of smoking, mood disorders, traumatic brain injuries, car crashes, and educational outcomes. However, risk decreases only if compliance is good, said Joseph Biederman, MD. Right now, “there’s extremely poor adherence to stimulant medications in ADHD” across the world, said Dr. Biederman, chief of clinical and research programs in pediatric psychopharmacology and adult ADHD at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“This is a problem that’s driven by ADHD itself,” he continued. Prescribers don’t always have the time to educate the patient on medications, deal with misconceptions, or provide support for management of daily activities.

Text reminders may offer a solution. Partnering with a Canadian technology company, MEMOTEXT, Dr. Biederman and colleagues at Massachusetts General Hospital developed an SMS-based disease management intervention for ADHD.

The tool aims to manage work, home life, and social relationships by supporting the timely renewal of medications. It doesn’t just remind people to take their ADHD medication, it reminds them to take any other medication they need, and provides the reasons why it’s important to take these drugs. Through interactive questions, it also assesses the progress and knowledge of patients and families about ADHD.

Testing this app in pediatric settings, Dr. Biederman and colleagues published a study in the Journal of Psychopharmacology showing a dramatic increase in compliance – from 60% to 90%.

In another study, this one published in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, Dr. Biederman and colleagues found that compliance improved, from 35% to 70% in adults. The SMS program in these settings not only improved adherence, but it also reduced costs of ADHD-associated complications while adding beneficial support and value to patients, families, and prescribers, Dr. Biederman said.

Promising findings about the power of apps to increase ADHD medication adherence led Luis Augusto Rohde, MD, PhD, and colleagues to develop the FOCUS app in 2016, for use in his home country of Brazil. The app objectively monitors symptoms of ADHD and establishes cooperative relationships between the patient, their families, and caregivers, said Dr. Rohde, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul’s department of psychiatry, Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Digital tech pros and cons

The accessibility of digital technology to children living in remote areas is one of its biggest assets, Dr. Kirk said.

Digital technologies capture real time data, are easy to use, are suitable for young children with developmental disorders, have few adverse effects, and can be easily updated. However, there are some limitations, she added. Attitudes toward technology, time required to supervise their use, and funding to facilitate the use of such technology can hinder implementation. Given that digital technology is increasingly being used to collect sensitive medical data and assess clinical conditions, it’s crucial for these new technologies to be compliant with HIPAA requirements, Dr. Kirk said.

“We are at the front end of a revolution, and much more of this is coming down the pike,” Dr. Kollins predicted. Developers need to be thoughtful and deliberate in how they design clinical evidence strategies for digital therapeutics for ADHD.

“There’s much work that needs to be done from a clinical, statistical, regulatory, and policy perspective, but this journey illustrates this can be done with ADHD and other mental health conditions.”

Dr. Kirk disclosed working previously for a small technology company in Melbourne that developed medical technologies for children. Dr. Kollins’ work has been supported by numerous U.S. agencies, including the National Institute of Mental Health. He has served as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies tied to ADHD clinical psychopharmacology. Dr. Biederman has provided research support to Genentech, Headspace, Pfizer, Roche Translational & Clinical Research Center, and other pharmaceutical companies. Also, Dr. Biederman has a partnership with MEMOTEXT through Partners Healthcare Innovation. Dr. Rohde has received grant or research support from, and served as a consultant to, several companies, including Bial, Novartis, Pfizer, and Shire/Takeda. He has received authorship royalties from Oxford University Press and ArtMed, and travel grants from Shire.

New digital tools are on the horizon to help patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) manage the condition.

Rostislav_Sedlacek/Thinkstock

Speakers at the World Congress on ADHD – Virtual Event described innovations aimed at improving medication compliance or reducing symptoms through the use of smartphone technology such as apps and text messaging, and video games. Some of these technologies have shown promising results in clinical trials, but the experts called for additional studies to further vet their efficacy.

An explosion in technology

ADHD, the most common neurodevelopmental disorder, has global prevalence rates ranging from 5% to 7%, said Dr. Kirk. Digital technology and digital health “have been heralded as having enormous potential to improve early access and to improve the increasing demand in child support services,” she said.

The world has seen an explosion of digital technology innovation in the last decade, spurred on most recently by the COVID-19 pandemic. New demand exists for tools in educational and health care settings to provide information and support through websites, apps, SMS, video conferencing, and wearable devices, Dr. Kirk said.

Looking at the landscape of ADHD digital therapeutics, “there are probably tens of thousands of apps and other digital products to treat and manage conditions across the spectrum,” said Scott H. Kollins, PhD, MS, a clinical psychologist at Duke Health’s ADHD Clinic in Durham, N.C.

Video game interventions

AKL-T01, a tool that pairs continuous fine motor tasks and perceptual reaction time tasks, went through several rounds of clinical trials to achieve federal approval as a digital therapeutic.

“This not just another video game,” said Dr. Kollins, who helped developed it. The tool’s adaptive algorithms adjust and monitor task difficulty based on performance, using a video game format and rewards to engage users.

Two phase 3 trials provided the basis for the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of AKL-T01, also known as EndeavorRx, in 2020. The first trial, published in The Lancet, randomized 348 children 1:1 to receive either the AKL-T01 treatment or a controlled intervention, which was a word game. Participating children aged 8-12 with a confirmed ADHD diagnosis were asked to play the game for about 25 minutes a day, 5 days a week over 4 weeks. The study excluded children who were taking medicine.

The researchers reported statistically significant improvements in attentional functioning in the AKL-T01 group as rated by test of variables of attention. The trial reported no serious adverse events, although one child in the AKL-T01 group withdrew from the study.

“As kids go through this treatment, it’s challenging and the difficulty levels increase, so it’s not surprising that kids get frustrated with that, or have emotional outbursts,” Dr. Kollins said. Those reactions suggest that the intervention was working, he added.

A follow-up study, published in npj Digital Medicine, broadened the scope. That study included children who had taken medication and extended the study period. Overall, 206 children aged 8-14 (130 on stimulants and 76 on no medication) played the game for 28 days, taking a pause for another 28 days, then reinitiating the treatment.

As in the first trial, AKL-T01 significantly improved ADHD-related impairment, a metric that continued to improve in the second round of treatment. Looking at secondary outcomes, the proportion of children deemed as clinical responders on the Impairment Rating Scale, 68.3% of all of the participants were responders by the end of the study on the ADHD ratings scale, meaning there was a greater than 30% improvement in symptoms. Upward of 50% of participants at the end of the second round of treatment showed substantial improvement in their ADHD ratings scale scores.

“This was really a substantial move ... the first-ever app-based video game approved by the FDA,” noted Dr. Kollins, who is affiliated with the Duke Clinical Research Institute. Some skeptics have called this a marketing ploy or have questioned the integrity of the FDA approval process.

“I would submit and argue that the rigor of the trial speaks for itself,” he said. “But it’s not surprising that there’s skepticism in the clinical community about something like this – a brand new treatment modality.”

In her own research, Dr. Kirk has studied game-based interventions aimed at assessing ADHD and improving cognitive training. In 2018, her team developed a touch screen game–based intervention for early evaluation of attention skills, using six activities. In a visual search task, children were asked to locate red lobsters on a screen that showed a variety of underwater creatures. In another selection attention task, children were asked to scan the screen for a particular target, such as a yellow star, and to indicate whether that target was absent or present on the screen. Other tasks assessed for sustained attention abilities and information processing speed.

She and her colleagues recruited 340 children aged 4-7 years to evaluate whether the tool produced consistent results over time, and compared favorably to existing measures of attention. None of the participants had been diagnosed with ADHD. To assess reliability, a subset of children completed another assessment 2 weeks after the first one. The study showed varying results according to activity. The visual search task had high test-retest reliability and the strongest validity, compared with the other tasks. The sustained attention tasks exhibited the weakest validity.

The next steps are to assess whether this tool is sensitive enough to detect differences between children with or without clinical attention difficulties such as ADHD, Dr. Kirk said.

Apps improve adherence

As some technologies focus on reducing symptoms through games, others seek to improve medication compliance through SMS and smartphone apps.

Studies have shown that medication can decrease incidence of smoking, mood disorders, traumatic brain injuries, car crashes, and educational outcomes. However, risk decreases only if compliance is good, said Joseph Biederman, MD. Right now, “there’s extremely poor adherence to stimulant medications in ADHD” across the world, said Dr. Biederman, chief of clinical and research programs in pediatric psychopharmacology and adult ADHD at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“This is a problem that’s driven by ADHD itself,” he continued. Prescribers don’t always have the time to educate the patient on medications, deal with misconceptions, or provide support for management of daily activities.

Text reminders may offer a solution. Partnering with a Canadian technology company, MEMOTEXT, Dr. Biederman and colleagues at Massachusetts General Hospital developed an SMS-based disease management intervention for ADHD.

The tool aims to manage work, home life, and social relationships by supporting the timely renewal of medications. It doesn’t just remind people to take their ADHD medication, it reminds them to take any other medication they need, and provides the reasons why it’s important to take these drugs. Through interactive questions, it also assesses the progress and knowledge of patients and families about ADHD.

Testing this app in pediatric settings, Dr. Biederman and colleagues published a study in the Journal of Psychopharmacology showing a dramatic increase in compliance – from 60% to 90%.

In another study, this one published in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, Dr. Biederman and colleagues found that compliance improved, from 35% to 70% in adults. The SMS program in these settings not only improved adherence, but it also reduced costs of ADHD-associated complications while adding beneficial support and value to patients, families, and prescribers, Dr. Biederman said.

Promising findings about the power of apps to increase ADHD medication adherence led Luis Augusto Rohde, MD, PhD, and colleagues to develop the FOCUS app in 2016, for use in his home country of Brazil. The app objectively monitors symptoms of ADHD and establishes cooperative relationships between the patient, their families, and caregivers, said Dr. Rohde, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul’s department of psychiatry, Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Digital tech pros and cons

The accessibility of digital technology to children living in remote areas is one of its biggest assets, Dr. Kirk said.

Digital technologies capture real time data, are easy to use, are suitable for young children with developmental disorders, have few adverse effects, and can be easily updated. However, there are some limitations, she added. Attitudes toward technology, time required to supervise their use, and funding to facilitate the use of such technology can hinder implementation. Given that digital technology is increasingly being used to collect sensitive medical data and assess clinical conditions, it’s crucial for these new technologies to be compliant with HIPAA requirements, Dr. Kirk said.

“We are at the front end of a revolution, and much more of this is coming down the pike,” Dr. Kollins predicted. Developers need to be thoughtful and deliberate in how they design clinical evidence strategies for digital therapeutics for ADHD.

“There’s much work that needs to be done from a clinical, statistical, regulatory, and policy perspective, but this journey illustrates this can be done with ADHD and other mental health conditions.”

Dr. Kirk disclosed working previously for a small technology company in Melbourne that developed medical technologies for children. Dr. Kollins’ work has been supported by numerous U.S. agencies, including the National Institute of Mental Health. He has served as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies tied to ADHD clinical psychopharmacology. Dr. Biederman has provided research support to Genentech, Headspace, Pfizer, Roche Translational & Clinical Research Center, and other pharmaceutical companies. Also, Dr. Biederman has a partnership with MEMOTEXT through Partners Healthcare Innovation. Dr. Rohde has received grant or research support from, and served as a consultant to, several companies, including Bial, Novartis, Pfizer, and Shire/Takeda. He has received authorship royalties from Oxford University Press and ArtMed, and travel grants from Shire.

New digital tools are on the horizon to help patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) manage the condition.

Rostislav_Sedlacek/Thinkstock

Speakers at the World Congress on ADHD – Virtual Event described innovations aimed at improving medication compliance or reducing symptoms through the use of smartphone technology such as apps and text messaging, and video games. Some of these technologies have shown promising results in clinical trials, but the experts called for additional studies to further vet their efficacy.

An explosion in technology

ADHD, the most common neurodevelopmental disorder, has global prevalence rates ranging from 5% to 7%, said Dr. Kirk. Digital technology and digital health “have been heralded as having enormous potential to improve early access and to improve the increasing demand in child support services,” she said.

The world has seen an explosion of digital technology innovation in the last decade, spurred on most recently by the COVID-19 pandemic. New demand exists for tools in educational and health care settings to provide information and support through websites, apps, SMS, video conferencing, and wearable devices, Dr. Kirk said.

Looking at the landscape of ADHD digital therapeutics, “there are probably tens of thousands of apps and other digital products to treat and manage conditions across the spectrum,” said Scott H. Kollins, PhD, MS, a clinical psychologist at Duke Health’s ADHD Clinic in Durham, N.C.

Video game interventions

AKL-T01, a tool that pairs continuous fine motor tasks and perceptual reaction time tasks, went through several rounds of clinical trials to achieve federal approval as a digital therapeutic.

“This not just another video game,” said Dr. Kollins, who helped developed it. The tool’s adaptive algorithms adjust and monitor task difficulty based on performance, using a video game format and rewards to engage users.

Two phase 3 trials provided the basis for the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of AKL-T01, also known as EndeavorRx, in 2020. The first trial, published in The Lancet, randomized 348 children 1:1 to receive either the AKL-T01 treatment or a controlled intervention, which was a word game. Participating children aged 8-12 with a confirmed ADHD diagnosis were asked to play the game for about 25 minutes a day, 5 days a week over 4 weeks. The study excluded children who were taking medicine.

The researchers reported statistically significant improvements in attentional functioning in the AKL-T01 group as rated by test of variables of attention. The trial reported no serious adverse events, although one child in the AKL-T01 group withdrew from the study.

“As kids go through this treatment, it’s challenging and the difficulty levels increase, so it’s not surprising that kids get frustrated with that, or have emotional outbursts,” Dr. Kollins said. Those reactions suggest that the intervention was working, he added.

A follow-up study, published in npj Digital Medicine, broadened the scope. That study included children who had taken medication and extended the study period. Overall, 206 children aged 8-14 (130 on stimulants and 76 on no medication) played the game for 28 days, taking a pause for another 28 days, then reinitiating the treatment.

As in the first trial, AKL-T01 significantly improved ADHD-related impairment, a metric that continued to improve in the second round of treatment. Looking at secondary outcomes, the proportion of children deemed as clinical responders on the Impairment Rating Scale, 68.3% of all of the participants were responders by the end of the study on the ADHD ratings scale, meaning there was a greater than 30% improvement in symptoms. Upward of 50% of participants at the end of the second round of treatment showed substantial improvement in their ADHD ratings scale scores.

“This was really a substantial move ... the first-ever app-based video game approved by the FDA,” noted Dr. Kollins, who is affiliated with the Duke Clinical Research Institute. Some skeptics have called this a marketing ploy or have questioned the integrity of the FDA approval process.

“I would submit and argue that the rigor of the trial speaks for itself,” he said. “But it’s not surprising that there’s skepticism in the clinical community about something like this – a brand new treatment modality.”

In her own research, Dr. Kirk has studied game-based interventions aimed at assessing ADHD and improving cognitive training. In 2018, her team developed a touch screen game–based intervention for early evaluation of attention skills, using six activities. In a visual search task, children were asked to locate red lobsters on a screen that showed a variety of underwater creatures. In another selection attention task, children were asked to scan the screen for a particular target, such as a yellow star, and to indicate whether that target was absent or present on the screen. Other tasks assessed for sustained attention abilities and information processing speed.

She and her colleagues recruited 340 children aged 4-7 years to evaluate whether the tool produced consistent results over time, and compared favorably to existing measures of attention. None of the participants had been diagnosed with ADHD. To assess reliability, a subset of children completed another assessment 2 weeks after the first one. The study showed varying results according to activity. The visual search task had high test-retest reliability and the strongest validity, compared with the other tasks. The sustained attention tasks exhibited the weakest validity.

The next steps are to assess whether this tool is sensitive enough to detect differences between children with or without clinical attention difficulties such as ADHD, Dr. Kirk said.

Apps improve adherence

As some technologies focus on reducing symptoms through games, others seek to improve medication compliance through SMS and smartphone apps.

Studies have shown that medication can decrease incidence of smoking, mood disorders, traumatic brain injuries, car crashes, and educational outcomes. However, risk decreases only if compliance is good, said Joseph Biederman, MD. Right now, “there’s extremely poor adherence to stimulant medications in ADHD” across the world, said Dr. Biederman, chief of clinical and research programs in pediatric psychopharmacology and adult ADHD at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“This is a problem that’s driven by ADHD itself,” he continued. Prescribers don’t always have the time to educate the patient on medications, deal with misconceptions, or provide support for management of daily activities.

Text reminders may offer a solution. Partnering with a Canadian technology company, MEMOTEXT, Dr. Biederman and colleagues at Massachusetts General Hospital developed an SMS-based disease management intervention for ADHD.

The tool aims to manage work, home life, and social relationships by supporting the timely renewal of medications. It doesn’t just remind people to take their ADHD medication, it reminds them to take any other medication they need, and provides the reasons why it’s important to take these drugs. Through interactive questions, it also assesses the progress and knowledge of patients and families about ADHD.

Testing this app in pediatric settings, Dr. Biederman and colleagues published a study in the Journal of Psychopharmacology showing a dramatic increase in compliance – from 60% to 90%.

In another study, this one published in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, Dr. Biederman and colleagues found that compliance improved, from 35% to 70% in adults. The SMS program in these settings not only improved adherence, but it also reduced costs of ADHD-associated complications while adding beneficial support and value to patients, families, and prescribers, Dr. Biederman said.

Promising findings about the power of apps to increase ADHD medication adherence led Luis Augusto Rohde, MD, PhD, and colleagues to develop the FOCUS app in 2016, for use in his home country of Brazil. The app objectively monitors symptoms of ADHD and establishes cooperative relationships between the patient, their families, and caregivers, said Dr. Rohde, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul’s department of psychiatry, Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Digital tech pros and cons

The accessibility of digital technology to children living in remote areas is one of its biggest assets, Dr. Kirk said.

Digital technologies capture real time data, are easy to use, are suitable for young children with developmental disorders, have few adverse effects, and can be easily updated. However, there are some limitations, she added. Attitudes toward technology, time required to supervise their use, and funding to facilitate the use of such technology can hinder implementation. Given that digital technology is increasingly being used to collect sensitive medical data and assess clinical conditions, it’s crucial for these new technologies to be compliant with HIPAA requirements, Dr. Kirk said.

“We are at the front end of a revolution, and much more of this is coming down the pike,” Dr. Kollins predicted. Developers need to be thoughtful and deliberate in how they design clinical evidence strategies for digital therapeutics for ADHD.

“There’s much work that needs to be done from a clinical, statistical, regulatory, and policy perspective, but this journey illustrates this can be done with ADHD and other mental health conditions.”

Dr. Kirk disclosed working previously for a small technology company in Melbourne that developed medical technologies for children. Dr. Kollins’ work has been supported by numerous U.S. agencies, including the National Institute of Mental Health. He has served as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies tied to ADHD clinical psychopharmacology. Dr. Biederman has provided research support to Genentech, Headspace, Pfizer, Roche Translational & Clinical Research Center, and other pharmaceutical companies. Also, Dr. Biederman has a partnership with MEMOTEXT through Partners Healthcare Innovation. Dr. Rohde has received grant or research support from, and served as a consultant to, several companies, including Bial, Novartis, Pfizer, and Shire/Takeda. He has received authorship royalties from Oxford University Press and ArtMed, and travel grants from Shire.

Motor problems in children may be a harbinger of serious mental illness, new research suggests.

Investigators found that motor abnormalities were twice as common among those who develop psychosis or depression, compared with their counterparts in the general population, suggesting that these abnormalities may help predict vulnerability and provide an opportunity for early intervention.

“We have learned there are motor signs that are measurable in adolescence [that are] more prevalent in these disorders,” said lead investigator Katherine S. F. Damme, PhD, adolescent development and preventive treatment program (ADAPT), Northwestern University, Chicago. 

A core symptom

There has been a lot of interest in the pathophysiology of psychosis and in detecting it early, said Dr. Damme. “It has devastating effects, and early intervention is of great importance,” she added.

However, previous research has typically focused on affect or cognition, rather than on motor signs, despite the fact that motor signs are a “core symptom of both psychosis and depression.”

The prevalence and presentation of motor signs in adolescence, which is a “critical time for identifying these risk markers” because of their proximity to the onset of psychosis, has been understudied, Dr. Damme said.

For their study, the investigators gathered motor function data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study (ABCD), which included 10,835 children aged 9-11 years with broad demographic diversity from 21 sites across the United States.

Overall, 27.6% of the children were reported to have least one motor sign; approximately 3% were reported to have two or more motor signs.

The most common of these was dyscoordination, which was endorsed by 19.3% of participants. In addition, 8.8% were reported to have had experienced developmental motor delays, 1.5% had psychomotor agitation, and 0.3% had psychomotor retardation.

The investigators determined that 4.6% of participants met criteria for depression, 2.6% for a psychosis, and 1.8% for comorbid psychosis and depression.

Motor signs were much more common among children with depression, psychosis, or both than among those who did not have these conditions; 45.8% reported having at least one motor sign.

Developmental motor delays and dyscoordination occurred at about the same rate in both patients with depression and those with psychosis. Rates were higher among patients with both of these conditions than among those with either condition alone.

In contrast, psychomotor agitation was more common among patients with depression alone and among those with comorbid depression and psychosis than among patients with psychosis alone. The rate of psychomotor retardation was increased among patients with psychosis alone but was less common among patients with comorbidity than in the healthy control group.

Familial vulnerability

The investigators also assessed participants who had not been diagnosed with a mental illness but who had a family history of depression only (28.9%), a relative with psychosis-like experiences (0.6%), or a family history of both depression and psychosis experiences (1.8%).

Although the effect size was smaller, there was a higher rate of motor signs among participants with a family history of these conditions, Dr. Damme said. “Again, we see that it’s elevated across developmental motor delays and at a similar rate in people who have depression and psychosis.”

In addition, psychomotor agitation was linked to depression with psychosis and depression without it.

Sensorimotor connectivity network data for the cohort indicated there was no main effect of diagnosis on corticostriatal connectivity.

However, more depressive symptoms were related to less connectivity (P = .024). There was a similar finding for psychotic-like experiences. The total number of such experiences related to lower connectivity (P < .001).

During the postpresentation discussion, Ian Kelleher, MD, PhD, honorary clinical lecturer in psychiatry at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, said he was “surprised” by the finding that the rate of psychomotor retardation was lower among participants with psychosis and depression.

Dr. Damme noted that some of the motor sign item ratings came by way of a child interview and that some of these item ratings came from the adults in the children’s lives.

She added that she was not entirely sure whether asking an 8- to 11-year-old in a clinical interview whether they are experiencing motor signs “might be the best way to get at motor slowing.”

Subtle features

Commenting on the findings in an interview, Peter F. Liddle, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, at the University of Nottingham (England), noted that the “features we’re talking about are pretty subtle.

“What I’ve been wondering about for some time is whether we should be getting video recordings and using machine learning approaches to teach a computer to recognize normal movements vs abnormal movements, and particularly facial expression,” said Dr. Liddle, who was not involved with the research.

He called the current study “interesting” but noted several factors that affect the potential utility of the findings in predicting outcomes.

First, they “may not be very good for distinguishing schizophrenia from mood disorders; but if the question is simply determining which young person might go on to develop a significant mental disorder, then it may be useful,” Dr. Liddle said.

He endorsed the investigators’ conclusion that motor abnormalities may be a transdiagnostic marker. Beyond that, they may be “more useful as a predictor of the likely long-term severity, but that’s my own hypothesis based on my work,” he added.

Another question concerns the sensitivity of motor abnormalities as a predictive marker. With the rate of the abnormalities identified in those who developed psychosis and depression about double the rate in the overall population, “it sounds like those assessors were fairly sensitive. … but not all that specific,” said Dr. Liddle.

A third issue relates to treatment. “By the time people get sent to a psychiatrist for assessment for possible impending psychotic illness, they’ve often already had medication,” typically an antidepressant or antipsychotic.

“It’s very well established that dopamine-blocking antipsychotics produce hypokinesia and also dyskinesia,” which could then become a confounding factor, Dr. Liddle said.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health. The study authors and Dr. Liddle have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Motor problems in children may be a harbinger of serious mental illness, new research suggests.

Investigators found that motor abnormalities were twice as common among those who develop psychosis or depression, compared with their counterparts in the general population, suggesting that these abnormalities may help predict vulnerability and provide an opportunity for early intervention.

“We have learned there are motor signs that are measurable in adolescence [that are] more prevalent in these disorders,” said lead investigator Katherine S. F. Damme, PhD, adolescent development and preventive treatment program (ADAPT), Northwestern University, Chicago. 

A core symptom

There has been a lot of interest in the pathophysiology of psychosis and in detecting it early, said Dr. Damme. “It has devastating effects, and early intervention is of great importance,” she added.

However, previous research has typically focused on affect or cognition, rather than on motor signs, despite the fact that motor signs are a “core symptom of both psychosis and depression.”

The prevalence and presentation of motor signs in adolescence, which is a “critical time for identifying these risk markers” because of their proximity to the onset of psychosis, has been understudied, Dr. Damme said.

For their study, the investigators gathered motor function data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study (ABCD), which included 10,835 children aged 9-11 years with broad demographic diversity from 21 sites across the United States.

Overall, 27.6% of the children were reported to have least one motor sign; approximately 3% were reported to have two or more motor signs.

The most common of these was dyscoordination, which was endorsed by 19.3% of participants. In addition, 8.8% were reported to have had experienced developmental motor delays, 1.5% had psychomotor agitation, and 0.3% had psychomotor retardation.

The investigators determined that 4.6% of participants met criteria for depression, 2.6% for a psychosis, and 1.8% for comorbid psychosis and depression.

Motor signs were much more common among children with depression, psychosis, or both than among those who did not have these conditions; 45.8% reported having at least one motor sign.

Developmental motor delays and dyscoordination occurred at about the same rate in both patients with depression and those with psychosis. Rates were higher among patients with both of these conditions than among those with either condition alone.

In contrast, psychomotor agitation was more common among patients with depression alone and among those with comorbid depression and psychosis than among patients with psychosis alone. The rate of psychomotor retardation was increased among patients with psychosis alone but was less common among patients with comorbidity than in the healthy control group.

Familial vulnerability

The investigators also assessed participants who had not been diagnosed with a mental illness but who had a family history of depression only (28.9%), a relative with psychosis-like experiences (0.6%), or a family history of both depression and psychosis experiences (1.8%).

Although the effect size was smaller, there was a higher rate of motor signs among participants with a family history of these conditions, Dr. Damme said. “Again, we see that it’s elevated across developmental motor delays and at a similar rate in people who have depression and psychosis.”

In addition, psychomotor agitation was linked to depression with psychosis and depression without it.

Sensorimotor connectivity network data for the cohort indicated there was no main effect of diagnosis on corticostriatal connectivity.

However, more depressive symptoms were related to less connectivity (P = .024). There was a similar finding for psychotic-like experiences. The total number of such experiences related to lower connectivity (P < .001).

During the postpresentation discussion, Ian Kelleher, MD, PhD, honorary clinical lecturer in psychiatry at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, said he was “surprised” by the finding that the rate of psychomotor retardation was lower among participants with psychosis and depression.

Dr. Damme noted that some of the motor sign item ratings came by way of a child interview and that some of these item ratings came from the adults in the children’s lives.

She added that she was not entirely sure whether asking an 8- to 11-year-old in a clinical interview whether they are experiencing motor signs “might be the best way to get at motor slowing.”

Subtle features

Commenting on the findings in an interview, Peter F. Liddle, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, at the University of Nottingham (England), noted that the “features we’re talking about are pretty subtle.

“What I’ve been wondering about for some time is whether we should be getting video recordings and using machine learning approaches to teach a computer to recognize normal movements vs abnormal movements, and particularly facial expression,” said Dr. Liddle, who was not involved with the research.

He called the current study “interesting” but noted several factors that affect the potential utility of the findings in predicting outcomes.

First, they “may not be very good for distinguishing schizophrenia from mood disorders; but if the question is simply determining which young person might go on to develop a significant mental disorder, then it may be useful,” Dr. Liddle said.

He endorsed the investigators’ conclusion that motor abnormalities may be a transdiagnostic marker. Beyond that, they may be “more useful as a predictor of the likely long-term severity, but that’s my own hypothesis based on my work,” he added.

Another question concerns the sensitivity of motor abnormalities as a predictive marker. With the rate of the abnormalities identified in those who developed psychosis and depression about double the rate in the overall population, “it sounds like those assessors were fairly sensitive. … but not all that specific,” said Dr. Liddle.

A third issue relates to treatment. “By the time people get sent to a psychiatrist for assessment for possible impending psychotic illness, they’ve often already had medication,” typically an antidepressant or antipsychotic.

“It’s very well established that dopamine-blocking antipsychotics produce hypokinesia and also dyskinesia,” which could then become a confounding factor, Dr. Liddle said.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health. The study authors and Dr. Liddle have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Motor problems in children may be a harbinger of serious mental illness, new research suggests.

Investigators found that motor abnormalities were twice as common among those who develop psychosis or depression, compared with their counterparts in the general population, suggesting that these abnormalities may help predict vulnerability and provide an opportunity for early intervention.

“We have learned there are motor signs that are measurable in adolescence [that are] more prevalent in these disorders,” said lead investigator Katherine S. F. Damme, PhD, adolescent development and preventive treatment program (ADAPT), Northwestern University, Chicago. 

A core symptom

There has been a lot of interest in the pathophysiology of psychosis and in detecting it early, said Dr. Damme. “It has devastating effects, and early intervention is of great importance,” she added.

However, previous research has typically focused on affect or cognition, rather than on motor signs, despite the fact that motor signs are a “core symptom of both psychosis and depression.”

The prevalence and presentation of motor signs in adolescence, which is a “critical time for identifying these risk markers” because of their proximity to the onset of psychosis, has been understudied, Dr. Damme said.

For their study, the investigators gathered motor function data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study (ABCD), which included 10,835 children aged 9-11 years with broad demographic diversity from 21 sites across the United States.

Overall, 27.6% of the children were reported to have least one motor sign; approximately 3% were reported to have two or more motor signs.

The most common of these was dyscoordination, which was endorsed by 19.3% of participants. In addition, 8.8% were reported to have had experienced developmental motor delays, 1.5% had psychomotor agitation, and 0.3% had psychomotor retardation.

The investigators determined that 4.6% of participants met criteria for depression, 2.6% for a psychosis, and 1.8% for comorbid psychosis and depression.

Motor signs were much more common among children with depression, psychosis, or both than among those who did not have these conditions; 45.8% reported having at least one motor sign.

Developmental motor delays and dyscoordination occurred at about the same rate in both patients with depression and those with psychosis. Rates were higher among patients with both of these conditions than among those with either condition alone.

In contrast, psychomotor agitation was more common among patients with depression alone and among those with comorbid depression and psychosis than among patients with psychosis alone. The rate of psychomotor retardation was increased among patients with psychosis alone but was less common among patients with comorbidity than in the healthy control group.

Familial vulnerability

The investigators also assessed participants who had not been diagnosed with a mental illness but who had a family history of depression only (28.9%), a relative with psychosis-like experiences (0.6%), or a family history of both depression and psychosis experiences (1.8%).

Although the effect size was smaller, there was a higher rate of motor signs among participants with a family history of these conditions, Dr. Damme said. “Again, we see that it’s elevated across developmental motor delays and at a similar rate in people who have depression and psychosis.”

In addition, psychomotor agitation was linked to depression with psychosis and depression without it.

Sensorimotor connectivity network data for the cohort indicated there was no main effect of diagnosis on corticostriatal connectivity.

However, more depressive symptoms were related to less connectivity (P = .024). There was a similar finding for psychotic-like experiences. The total number of such experiences related to lower connectivity (P < .001).

During the postpresentation discussion, Ian Kelleher, MD, PhD, honorary clinical lecturer in psychiatry at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, said he was “surprised” by the finding that the rate of psychomotor retardation was lower among participants with psychosis and depression.

Dr. Damme noted that some of the motor sign item ratings came by way of a child interview and that some of these item ratings came from the adults in the children’s lives.

She added that she was not entirely sure whether asking an 8- to 11-year-old in a clinical interview whether they are experiencing motor signs “might be the best way to get at motor slowing.”

Subtle features

Commenting on the findings in an interview, Peter F. Liddle, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, at the University of Nottingham (England), noted that the “features we’re talking about are pretty subtle.

“What I’ve been wondering about for some time is whether we should be getting video recordings and using machine learning approaches to teach a computer to recognize normal movements vs abnormal movements, and particularly facial expression,” said Dr. Liddle, who was not involved with the research.

He called the current study “interesting” but noted several factors that affect the potential utility of the findings in predicting outcomes.

First, they “may not be very good for distinguishing schizophrenia from mood disorders; but if the question is simply determining which young person might go on to develop a significant mental disorder, then it may be useful,” Dr. Liddle said.

He endorsed the investigators’ conclusion that motor abnormalities may be a transdiagnostic marker. Beyond that, they may be “more useful as a predictor of the likely long-term severity, but that’s my own hypothesis based on my work,” he added.

Another question concerns the sensitivity of motor abnormalities as a predictive marker. With the rate of the abnormalities identified in those who developed psychosis and depression about double the rate in the overall population, “it sounds like those assessors were fairly sensitive. … but not all that specific,” said Dr. Liddle.

A third issue relates to treatment. “By the time people get sent to a psychiatrist for assessment for possible impending psychotic illness, they’ve often already had medication,” typically an antidepressant or antipsychotic.

“It’s very well established that dopamine-blocking antipsychotics produce hypokinesia and also dyskinesia,” which could then become a confounding factor, Dr. Liddle said.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health. The study authors and Dr. Liddle have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Genital skin exams in girls must be conducted with special care and alertness for signs of abuse, a dermatologist told colleagues at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

“One in four adult women report being childhood victims of sexual abuse, which is just a staggering number. This is an opportunity for us to identify these patients early and give them the terminology to be able to report what is happening to them,” said pediatric dermatologist Kalyani Marathe, MD, MPH, director of the division of dermatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. “We also have the chance to give them a sense of agency over their bodies.”

Dr. Marathe offered the following recommendations when performing a genital skin exam:

• Make sure a “chaperone” is present. “Chaperones are a must when you’re examining children and teens,” she said. “Ask whom they prefer. For prepubertal children, you’re going to usually use the parent who’s there with them. If the parent is their father, they might ask him to step behind the curtain, in which case you can bring over your nurse or medical assistant.” Teens may ask either parent to step out of the room, she said. In that case, a nurse, medical assistant, resident, or trainee can fill in. “If you have male residents or trainees with you and the patient really does not want to be examined by a male, honor their request. Do not force them.”
• Explain why the exam is being performed. Make sure the patient understands why she is being seen, Dr. Marathe advised. For example, say something like “your pediatrician told us that you have an itchy area” or “your mom told us that there’s some loss of color in that area, that you’re having a problem there.” She added that it’s helpful to explain the type of doctor you are, with a comment such as the following: “We’re examining you because we’re doctors who specialize in skin. ... We want to help you feel better and make sure that your skin heals and is healthy.”
• Ask both the child and the parent for permission to perform the exam. While this may seem trivial, “it’s very, very important in setting the right tone for the encounter,” she said. “If the child says yes, we turn to the mom and say: ‘Mom, is it okay for us to do this exam today?’ You can see visible relief on the part of the parent, and as the parent relaxes, the child relaxes. Just saying those few things really makes the encounter so much smoother.” However, “if they say no, you have to honor the response. ... You say: ‘Okay, we’re not going to do the exam today,” and see the patient in a few weeks. If it’s urgent, an exam under anesthesia may be an option, she added.
• Talk to the child about the terms they use for private parts. It can be helpful to ask: “Do you have any terms for your private area?” According to Dr. Marathe, “this is a good chance to educate them on the terms vulva and vagina since they may be using other terminology. Making sure that they have the correct terms will actually help patients identify and report abuse earlier.” Dr. Marathe recalled that a colleague had a patient who’d been calling her private area “pound cake” and had been “reporting to her teacher that someone had been touching her ‘pound cake.’ Her teacher did not know what she meant by that, and this led to a great delay in her childhood abuse being reported.”
• Talk about what will happen during the exam. “I like to show them any instruments that we’re going to be using,” Dr. Marathe said. “If we’re using a flashlight, for example, I like to show them a picture [of a flashlight] or show them that flashlight. If we’re using a camera to do digital photography, show them that. If we’re going to be using a Q-tip or a swab to demonstrate anything or to take a culture, I like to show them that beforehand to make sure that they know what we’re doing.” In regard to photography, “make sure the parent and child know where the photos are going to go, who’s going to see them, what are they going to be used for. If they’re going to be used for educational purposes, make sure they have given explicit permission for that and they know they’ll be deidentified.”
• Make it clear that the exam won’t be painful. It’s important to put both the patient and the parent at ease on this front, Dr. Marathe said. “A lot of parents are concerned that we’re going to do a speculum exam in their prepubertal child. So make sure that it’s clarified ahead of time that we’re not going to be doing a speculum exam.”

Commenting on this topic, Tor Shwayder, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, urged colleagues to take action if they feel suspicious about a possible sign of child abuse, even if they’re far from certain that anything is wrong. “Don’t ignore those feelings in the back of the brain,” he said in an interview.

Most states have child-abuse hotlines for medical professionals, and major hospitals will have child-abuse teams, Dr. Shwayder said. He urged dermatologists to take advantage of these resources when appropriate. “The professionals on the other side of the 800 number or at the hospital will help you. You don’t have to decide immediately whether this is child abuse. You just need to have a suspicion.”

Dr. Marathe and Dr. Shwayder report no disclosures.

Genital skin exams in girls must be conducted with special care and alertness for signs of abuse, a dermatologist told colleagues at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

“One in four adult women report being childhood victims of sexual abuse, which is just a staggering number. This is an opportunity for us to identify these patients early and give them the terminology to be able to report what is happening to them,” said pediatric dermatologist Kalyani Marathe, MD, MPH, director of the division of dermatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. “We also have the chance to give them a sense of agency over their bodies.”

Dr. Marathe offered the following recommendations when performing a genital skin exam:

• Make sure a “chaperone” is present. “Chaperones are a must when you’re examining children and teens,” she said. “Ask whom they prefer. For prepubertal children, you’re going to usually use the parent who’s there with them. If the parent is their father, they might ask him to step behind the curtain, in which case you can bring over your nurse or medical assistant.” Teens may ask either parent to step out of the room, she said. In that case, a nurse, medical assistant, resident, or trainee can fill in. “If you have male residents or trainees with you and the patient really does not want to be examined by a male, honor their request. Do not force them.”
• Explain why the exam is being performed. Make sure the patient understands why she is being seen, Dr. Marathe advised. For example, say something like “your pediatrician told us that you have an itchy area” or “your mom told us that there’s some loss of color in that area, that you’re having a problem there.” She added that it’s helpful to explain the type of doctor you are, with a comment such as the following: “We’re examining you because we’re doctors who specialize in skin. ... We want to help you feel better and make sure that your skin heals and is healthy.”
• Ask both the child and the parent for permission to perform the exam. While this may seem trivial, “it’s very, very important in setting the right tone for the encounter,” she said. “If the child says yes, we turn to the mom and say: ‘Mom, is it okay for us to do this exam today?’ You can see visible relief on the part of the parent, and as the parent relaxes, the child relaxes. Just saying those few things really makes the encounter so much smoother.” However, “if they say no, you have to honor the response. ... You say: ‘Okay, we’re not going to do the exam today,” and see the patient in a few weeks. If it’s urgent, an exam under anesthesia may be an option, she added.
• Talk to the child about the terms they use for private parts. It can be helpful to ask: “Do you have any terms for your private area?” According to Dr. Marathe, “this is a good chance to educate them on the terms vulva and vagina since they may be using other terminology. Making sure that they have the correct terms will actually help patients identify and report abuse earlier.” Dr. Marathe recalled that a colleague had a patient who’d been calling her private area “pound cake” and had been “reporting to her teacher that someone had been touching her ‘pound cake.’ Her teacher did not know what she meant by that, and this led to a great delay in her childhood abuse being reported.”
• Talk about what will happen during the exam. “I like to show them any instruments that we’re going to be using,” Dr. Marathe said. “If we’re using a flashlight, for example, I like to show them a picture [of a flashlight] or show them that flashlight. If we’re using a camera to do digital photography, show them that. If we’re going to be using a Q-tip or a swab to demonstrate anything or to take a culture, I like to show them that beforehand to make sure that they know what we’re doing.” In regard to photography, “make sure the parent and child know where the photos are going to go, who’s going to see them, what are they going to be used for. If they’re going to be used for educational purposes, make sure they have given explicit permission for that and they know they’ll be deidentified.”
• Make it clear that the exam won’t be painful. It’s important to put both the patient and the parent at ease on this front, Dr. Marathe said. “A lot of parents are concerned that we’re going to do a speculum exam in their prepubertal child. So make sure that it’s clarified ahead of time that we’re not going to be doing a speculum exam.”

Commenting on this topic, Tor Shwayder, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, urged colleagues to take action if they feel suspicious about a possible sign of child abuse, even if they’re far from certain that anything is wrong. “Don’t ignore those feelings in the back of the brain,” he said in an interview.

Most states have child-abuse hotlines for medical professionals, and major hospitals will have child-abuse teams, Dr. Shwayder said. He urged dermatologists to take advantage of these resources when appropriate. “The professionals on the other side of the 800 number or at the hospital will help you. You don’t have to decide immediately whether this is child abuse. You just need to have a suspicion.”

Dr. Marathe and Dr. Shwayder report no disclosures.

Genital skin exams in girls must be conducted with special care and alertness for signs of abuse, a dermatologist told colleagues at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

“One in four adult women report being childhood victims of sexual abuse, which is just a staggering number. This is an opportunity for us to identify these patients early and give them the terminology to be able to report what is happening to them,” said pediatric dermatologist Kalyani Marathe, MD, MPH, director of the division of dermatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. “We also have the chance to give them a sense of agency over their bodies.”

Dr. Marathe offered the following recommendations when performing a genital skin exam:

• Make sure a “chaperone” is present. “Chaperones are a must when you’re examining children and teens,” she said. “Ask whom they prefer. For prepubertal children, you’re going to usually use the parent who’s there with them. If the parent is their father, they might ask him to step behind the curtain, in which case you can bring over your nurse or medical assistant.” Teens may ask either parent to step out of the room, she said. In that case, a nurse, medical assistant, resident, or trainee can fill in. “If you have male residents or trainees with you and the patient really does not want to be examined by a male, honor their request. Do not force them.”
• Explain why the exam is being performed. Make sure the patient understands why she is being seen, Dr. Marathe advised. For example, say something like “your pediatrician told us that you have an itchy area” or “your mom told us that there’s some loss of color in that area, that you’re having a problem there.” She added that it’s helpful to explain the type of doctor you are, with a comment such as the following: “We’re examining you because we’re doctors who specialize in skin. ... We want to help you feel better and make sure that your skin heals and is healthy.”
• Ask both the child and the parent for permission to perform the exam. While this may seem trivial, “it’s very, very important in setting the right tone for the encounter,” she said. “If the child says yes, we turn to the mom and say: ‘Mom, is it okay for us to do this exam today?’ You can see visible relief on the part of the parent, and as the parent relaxes, the child relaxes. Just saying those few things really makes the encounter so much smoother.” However, “if they say no, you have to honor the response. ... You say: ‘Okay, we’re not going to do the exam today,” and see the patient in a few weeks. If it’s urgent, an exam under anesthesia may be an option, she added.
• Talk to the child about the terms they use for private parts. It can be helpful to ask: “Do you have any terms for your private area?” According to Dr. Marathe, “this is a good chance to educate them on the terms vulva and vagina since they may be using other terminology. Making sure that they have the correct terms will actually help patients identify and report abuse earlier.” Dr. Marathe recalled that a colleague had a patient who’d been calling her private area “pound cake” and had been “reporting to her teacher that someone had been touching her ‘pound cake.’ Her teacher did not know what she meant by that, and this led to a great delay in her childhood abuse being reported.”
• Talk about what will happen during the exam. “I like to show them any instruments that we’re going to be using,” Dr. Marathe said. “If we’re using a flashlight, for example, I like to show them a picture [of a flashlight] or show them that flashlight. If we’re using a camera to do digital photography, show them that. If we’re going to be using a Q-tip or a swab to demonstrate anything or to take a culture, I like to show them that beforehand to make sure that they know what we’re doing.” In regard to photography, “make sure the parent and child know where the photos are going to go, who’s going to see them, what are they going to be used for. If they’re going to be used for educational purposes, make sure they have given explicit permission for that and they know they’ll be deidentified.”
• Make it clear that the exam won’t be painful. It’s important to put both the patient and the parent at ease on this front, Dr. Marathe said. “A lot of parents are concerned that we’re going to do a speculum exam in their prepubertal child. So make sure that it’s clarified ahead of time that we’re not going to be doing a speculum exam.”

Commenting on this topic, Tor Shwayder, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, urged colleagues to take action if they feel suspicious about a possible sign of child abuse, even if they’re far from certain that anything is wrong. “Don’t ignore those feelings in the back of the brain,” he said in an interview.

Most states have child-abuse hotlines for medical professionals, and major hospitals will have child-abuse teams, Dr. Shwayder said. He urged dermatologists to take advantage of these resources when appropriate. “The professionals on the other side of the 800 number or at the hospital will help you. You don’t have to decide immediately whether this is child abuse. You just need to have a suspicion.”

Dr. Marathe and Dr. Shwayder report no disclosures.

Chronic insomnia is often underrecognized and misunderstood in primary care, sleep expert Christopher Lettieri, MD, told attendees at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Too often, medications are the treatment of choice, and when used long term they can perpetuate a problematic cycle, said Dr. Lettieri, professor in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

However, medications alone won’t work without other behavior modifications and they come with potential side effects, he said in his talk. Prescription medications typically don’t treat the cause of the insomnia, just the symptoms.

“In the 15 years I’ve been practicing sleep medicine, I can honestly say I only have a handful of patients that I treat with long-term pharmacotherapy,” Dr. Lettieri said.

He said he typically uses pharmacotherapy only when conservative measures have failed or to help jump-start patients to behavior modifications.

Restricted sleep is a good place to start for chronic insomnia, he continued.

Physicians should ask patients the latest time they can wake up to make it to school, work, etc. If that time is 6 a.m., the goal is to move bedtime back to 10 p.m.–11 p.m. If the patient, however, is unable to sleep until 12:30 a.m., move bedtime there, he said.

Though the 5.5-hour window is not ideal, it’s better to get into bed when ready for sleep. From there, try to get the patient to move bedtime back 15 minutes each week as they train themselves to fall asleep earlier, he said.

“I promise you this works in the majority of patients and doesn’t require any medication. You can also accomplish this with one or two office visits, so it is not a huge drain on resources,” he said.
 

Sleep specialists in short supply

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is “without question the best way to treat chronic insomnia and it’s recommended as first-line therapy by all published guidelines,” Dr. Lettieri said.

He defined chronic insomnia as happening most nights over at least 3 months. It affects twice as many women as men.

CBT offers a formalized way of changing sleep patterns with the help of an expert in sleep behavior disorders. It combines cognitive therapies with education about sleep and stimulus control and uses techniques such as mindfulness and relaxation.

However, most programs take 4-8 sessions with a sleep medicine provider and are usually not covered by insurance. In addition, the number of insomnia specialists is not nearly adequate to meet demand, he added.

Online and mobile-platform CBT programs are widely effective, Dr. Lettieri said. Many are free and all are convenient for patients to use. He said many of his patients use Sleepio, but many other online programs are effective.

“You can provide sufficient therapy for many of your patients and reserve CBT for patients who can’t be fixed with more conservative measures,” he said.
 

Insomnia among older patients

Interest in helping older patients with insomnia dominated the chat session associated with the talk.

Insomnia increases with age and older patients have often been using prescription or over-the-counter sleep aids for decades.

Additionally, “insomnia is the second-most common reason why people get admitted to long-term care facilities, second only to urinary incontinence,” Dr. Lettieri said.

If physicians use medications with older patients, he said, extra caution is needed. Older people have more neurocognitive impairments than younger adults and may already be taking several other medications. Sleep medications may come with longer elimination half-lives. Polypharmacy may increase risk for falls and have other consequences.

“If you have to go to a medication, try something simple like melatonin,” he said, adding that it should be pharmaceutical grade and extended release.

Also, bright lights during the day, movement throughout the day, and dim lights closer to bedtime are especially important for the elderly, Dr. Lettieri said.

Andrew Corr, MD, a geriatric specialist in primary care with the Riverside (Calif.) Medical Clinic, said in an interview the main message he will take back to his physician group is more CBT and less medication.

He said that, although he has long known CBT is the top first-line treatment, it is difficult to find experts in his area who are trained to do CBT for insomnia, so he was glad to hear online programs and self-directed reading are typically effective.

He also said there’s a common misperception that there’s no harm in prescribing medications such as trazodone (Desyrel), an antidepressant commonly used off label as a sleep aid.

Dr. Lettieri’s talk highlighted his recommendation against using trazodone for sleep. “Despite several recommendations against its use for insomnia, it is still commonly prescribed. You just shouldn’t use it for insomnia,” Dr. Lettieri said.

“It has no measurable effect in a third of patients and at least unacceptable side effects in another third.  Right off the bat, it’s not efficacious in two thirds of patients.”

Additionally, priapism, a prolonged erection, has been associated with trazodone, Dr. Lettieri said, “and I have literally never met a patient on trazodone who was counseled about this.”

Trazodone also has a black box warning from the Food and Drug Administration warning about increased risk for suicidal thoughts.

Dr. Lettieri and Dr. Corr disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Chronic insomnia is often underrecognized and misunderstood in primary care, sleep expert Christopher Lettieri, MD, told attendees at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Too often, medications are the treatment of choice, and when used long term they can perpetuate a problematic cycle, said Dr. Lettieri, professor in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

However, medications alone won’t work without other behavior modifications and they come with potential side effects, he said in his talk. Prescription medications typically don’t treat the cause of the insomnia, just the symptoms.

“In the 15 years I’ve been practicing sleep medicine, I can honestly say I only have a handful of patients that I treat with long-term pharmacotherapy,” Dr. Lettieri said.

He said he typically uses pharmacotherapy only when conservative measures have failed or to help jump-start patients to behavior modifications.

Restricted sleep is a good place to start for chronic insomnia, he continued.

Physicians should ask patients the latest time they can wake up to make it to school, work, etc. If that time is 6 a.m., the goal is to move bedtime back to 10 p.m.–11 p.m. If the patient, however, is unable to sleep until 12:30 a.m., move bedtime there, he said.

Though the 5.5-hour window is not ideal, it’s better to get into bed when ready for sleep. From there, try to get the patient to move bedtime back 15 minutes each week as they train themselves to fall asleep earlier, he said.

“I promise you this works in the majority of patients and doesn’t require any medication. You can also accomplish this with one or two office visits, so it is not a huge drain on resources,” he said.
 

Sleep specialists in short supply

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is “without question the best way to treat chronic insomnia and it’s recommended as first-line therapy by all published guidelines,” Dr. Lettieri said.

He defined chronic insomnia as happening most nights over at least 3 months. It affects twice as many women as men.

CBT offers a formalized way of changing sleep patterns with the help of an expert in sleep behavior disorders. It combines cognitive therapies with education about sleep and stimulus control and uses techniques such as mindfulness and relaxation.

However, most programs take 4-8 sessions with a sleep medicine provider and are usually not covered by insurance. In addition, the number of insomnia specialists is not nearly adequate to meet demand, he added.

Online and mobile-platform CBT programs are widely effective, Dr. Lettieri said. Many are free and all are convenient for patients to use. He said many of his patients use Sleepio, but many other online programs are effective.

“You can provide sufficient therapy for many of your patients and reserve CBT for patients who can’t be fixed with more conservative measures,” he said.
 

Insomnia among older patients

Interest in helping older patients with insomnia dominated the chat session associated with the talk.

Insomnia increases with age and older patients have often been using prescription or over-the-counter sleep aids for decades.

Additionally, “insomnia is the second-most common reason why people get admitted to long-term care facilities, second only to urinary incontinence,” Dr. Lettieri said.

If physicians use medications with older patients, he said, extra caution is needed. Older people have more neurocognitive impairments than younger adults and may already be taking several other medications. Sleep medications may come with longer elimination half-lives. Polypharmacy may increase risk for falls and have other consequences.

“If you have to go to a medication, try something simple like melatonin,” he said, adding that it should be pharmaceutical grade and extended release.

Also, bright lights during the day, movement throughout the day, and dim lights closer to bedtime are especially important for the elderly, Dr. Lettieri said.

Andrew Corr, MD, a geriatric specialist in primary care with the Riverside (Calif.) Medical Clinic, said in an interview the main message he will take back to his physician group is more CBT and less medication.

He said that, although he has long known CBT is the top first-line treatment, it is difficult to find experts in his area who are trained to do CBT for insomnia, so he was glad to hear online programs and self-directed reading are typically effective.

He also said there’s a common misperception that there’s no harm in prescribing medications such as trazodone (Desyrel), an antidepressant commonly used off label as a sleep aid.

Dr. Lettieri’s talk highlighted his recommendation against using trazodone for sleep. “Despite several recommendations against its use for insomnia, it is still commonly prescribed. You just shouldn’t use it for insomnia,” Dr. Lettieri said.

“It has no measurable effect in a third of patients and at least unacceptable side effects in another third.  Right off the bat, it’s not efficacious in two thirds of patients.”

Additionally, priapism, a prolonged erection, has been associated with trazodone, Dr. Lettieri said, “and I have literally never met a patient on trazodone who was counseled about this.”

Trazodone also has a black box warning from the Food and Drug Administration warning about increased risk for suicidal thoughts.

Dr. Lettieri and Dr. Corr disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Chronic insomnia is often underrecognized and misunderstood in primary care, sleep expert Christopher Lettieri, MD, told attendees at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Too often, medications are the treatment of choice, and when used long term they can perpetuate a problematic cycle, said Dr. Lettieri, professor in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

However, medications alone won’t work without other behavior modifications and they come with potential side effects, he said in his talk. Prescription medications typically don’t treat the cause of the insomnia, just the symptoms.

“In the 15 years I’ve been practicing sleep medicine, I can honestly say I only have a handful of patients that I treat with long-term pharmacotherapy,” Dr. Lettieri said.

He said he typically uses pharmacotherapy only when conservative measures have failed or to help jump-start patients to behavior modifications.

Restricted sleep is a good place to start for chronic insomnia, he continued.

Physicians should ask patients the latest time they can wake up to make it to school, work, etc. If that time is 6 a.m., the goal is to move bedtime back to 10 p.m.–11 p.m. If the patient, however, is unable to sleep until 12:30 a.m., move bedtime there, he said.

Though the 5.5-hour window is not ideal, it’s better to get into bed when ready for sleep. From there, try to get the patient to move bedtime back 15 minutes each week as they train themselves to fall asleep earlier, he said.

“I promise you this works in the majority of patients and doesn’t require any medication. You can also accomplish this with one or two office visits, so it is not a huge drain on resources,” he said.
 

Sleep specialists in short supply

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is “without question the best way to treat chronic insomnia and it’s recommended as first-line therapy by all published guidelines,” Dr. Lettieri said.

He defined chronic insomnia as happening most nights over at least 3 months. It affects twice as many women as men.

CBT offers a formalized way of changing sleep patterns with the help of an expert in sleep behavior disorders. It combines cognitive therapies with education about sleep and stimulus control and uses techniques such as mindfulness and relaxation.

However, most programs take 4-8 sessions with a sleep medicine provider and are usually not covered by insurance. In addition, the number of insomnia specialists is not nearly adequate to meet demand, he added.

Online and mobile-platform CBT programs are widely effective, Dr. Lettieri said. Many are free and all are convenient for patients to use. He said many of his patients use Sleepio, but many other online programs are effective.

“You can provide sufficient therapy for many of your patients and reserve CBT for patients who can’t be fixed with more conservative measures,” he said.
 

Insomnia among older patients

Interest in helping older patients with insomnia dominated the chat session associated with the talk.

Insomnia increases with age and older patients have often been using prescription or over-the-counter sleep aids for decades.

Additionally, “insomnia is the second-most common reason why people get admitted to long-term care facilities, second only to urinary incontinence,” Dr. Lettieri said.

If physicians use medications with older patients, he said, extra caution is needed. Older people have more neurocognitive impairments than younger adults and may already be taking several other medications. Sleep medications may come with longer elimination half-lives. Polypharmacy may increase risk for falls and have other consequences.

“If you have to go to a medication, try something simple like melatonin,” he said, adding that it should be pharmaceutical grade and extended release.

Also, bright lights during the day, movement throughout the day, and dim lights closer to bedtime are especially important for the elderly, Dr. Lettieri said.

Andrew Corr, MD, a geriatric specialist in primary care with the Riverside (Calif.) Medical Clinic, said in an interview the main message he will take back to his physician group is more CBT and less medication.

He said that, although he has long known CBT is the top first-line treatment, it is difficult to find experts in his area who are trained to do CBT for insomnia, so he was glad to hear online programs and self-directed reading are typically effective.

He also said there’s a common misperception that there’s no harm in prescribing medications such as trazodone (Desyrel), an antidepressant commonly used off label as a sleep aid.

Dr. Lettieri’s talk highlighted his recommendation against using trazodone for sleep. “Despite several recommendations against its use for insomnia, it is still commonly prescribed. You just shouldn’t use it for insomnia,” Dr. Lettieri said.

“It has no measurable effect in a third of patients and at least unacceptable side effects in another third.  Right off the bat, it’s not efficacious in two thirds of patients.”

Additionally, priapism, a prolonged erection, has been associated with trazodone, Dr. Lettieri said, “and I have literally never met a patient on trazodone who was counseled about this.”

Trazodone also has a black box warning from the Food and Drug Administration warning about increased risk for suicidal thoughts.

Dr. Lettieri and Dr. Corr disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Girls in late stages of puberty who had elevated levels of body fat showed unusually high levels of several hormones that could contribute to an earlier age of menarche and also slow breast development, according to data from 90 girls who spanned a wide range of body fat in the first longitudinal study to examine links between fat volume, levels of reproductive hormones, and clinical manifestations of hormone action during puberty.

The results showed that girls with greater body fat had higher levels of follicle stimulating hormone, inhibin B, estrone, and certain male-like reproductive hormones, and that this pattern “is specifically tied to body fat,” said Natalie D. Shaw, MD, senior investigator for the study, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“We found that total body fat is associated with the timing of menarche, as others have reported for body weight,” she noted. The new findings showed that every 1% rise in percent total body fat linked with a significant 3% rise in the likelihood of menarche, menstrual onset. In the new study the average age of menarche was 11.7 years among the overweight or obese girls and 12.8 years among those with normal weights.

But the study’s unique use of an average of about three serial ultrasound breast examinations of each subject during an average 4 years of follow-up also showed that higher levels of body fat linked with slowed breast development in later stages, specifically maturation from stage D to stages D/E and E.

For example, girls with 33% body fat spent an average of 8.2 months in stage D, which stretched to an average of 11.2 months among girls with 38% body fat, reported Madison T. Ortega, a researcher with the Pediatric Endocrinology Group of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in Research Triangle Park, N.C., who presented the report at the meeting.
 

Ultrasound shows what inspection can’t

Results from “several studies have shown earlier breast development in overweight and obese girls by inspection and palpation,” but the new findings from ultrasound examination provide more nuance about the structural breast changes actually occurring in these adolescents, said Dr. Shaw, who heads the Pediatric Endocrinology Group. The current study “was not designed to capture the onset of breast development,” and “it is possible that increased androgens or insulin resistance in girls with higher body fat interferes with normal breast development,” she explained in an interview.

“The authors showed that the timing and progress of early stages of puberty were not earlier in overweight or obese girls. Luteinizing hormone, the indicator of neuroendocrine pubertal onset, and timing of early stages of breast development were the same in all weight groups. The authors also discovered falsely advanced Turner breast stage designations with ultrasonography in some girls with obesity. This might suggest that prior findings in epidemiologic studies of an earlier start to puberty based mostly on breast development stages identified by self-reported inspection and, rarely, palpation, may have been biased by breast adipose tissue,” said Christine M. Burt Solorzano, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, who was not involved in the study.

“Development of increased follicle-stimulating hormone in late puberty suggests that pubertal tempo, not onset, may be increased in girls with obesity, and goes along with earlier menarche. Their finding of increased androgen levels during mid to late puberty with obesity are consistent with prior findings,” including work published Dr. Burt Solorzano and her associates, she noted. “Delayed timing of advanced breast morphology was unexpected and may reflect relatively lower levels of progesterone in girls with obesity,” a hormone necessary for later stages of breast maturation.

The findings “reinforce that early breast development in the setting of obesity may in fact reflect adipose tissue and not be a true representation of neuroendocrine precocious puberty,” Dr. Burt Solorzano said in an interview. The findings “also suggest that pubertal initiation may not happen earlier in girls with obesity, as has been thought, but rather the tempo of puberty may be more rapid, leading to earlier menarche.”

A possible step toward PCOS

The long-term clinical consequences of the hormonal state linked with overweight and obesity “are unknown,” said Dr. Shaw. However, she and her coworkers followed a few of their subjects with elevated testosterone levels during midpuberty, and several developed signs of early polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) such as irregular menstrual cycles, acne, and hirsutism. “It may be possible to identify girls at high risk for PCOS before menarche,” she suggested.

Dr. Burt Solorzano agreed that delayed breast development in girls with high levels of body fat may reflect inadequate progesterone production, which when coupled with an obesity-related excess level of androgens could put girls at risk for chronic anovulation and later PCOS.

“Weight management during childhood and early puberty may mitigate the adverse effects of obesity on pubertal progression and avoid some of the lifetime complications related to early menarche,” Dr. Burt Solorzano said.

The Body Weight and Puberty Study enrolled 36 girls who were overweight or obese and 54 girls with normal weight. They averaged 11 years of age, with a range of 8.2-14.7 years. Average percent body fat was 41% among the overweight or obese girls and 27% among those with normal weight. The results reported by Ms. Ortega also appeared in a report published Feb 22, 2021 (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgab092).

Dr. Shaw, Ms. Ortega, and Dr. Burt Solorzano had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Girls in late stages of puberty who had elevated levels of body fat showed unusually high levels of several hormones that could contribute to an earlier age of menarche and also slow breast development, according to data from 90 girls who spanned a wide range of body fat in the first longitudinal study to examine links between fat volume, levels of reproductive hormones, and clinical manifestations of hormone action during puberty.

The results showed that girls with greater body fat had higher levels of follicle stimulating hormone, inhibin B, estrone, and certain male-like reproductive hormones, and that this pattern “is specifically tied to body fat,” said Natalie D. Shaw, MD, senior investigator for the study, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“We found that total body fat is associated with the timing of menarche, as others have reported for body weight,” she noted. The new findings showed that every 1% rise in percent total body fat linked with a significant 3% rise in the likelihood of menarche, menstrual onset. In the new study the average age of menarche was 11.7 years among the overweight or obese girls and 12.8 years among those with normal weights.

But the study’s unique use of an average of about three serial ultrasound breast examinations of each subject during an average 4 years of follow-up also showed that higher levels of body fat linked with slowed breast development in later stages, specifically maturation from stage D to stages D/E and E.

For example, girls with 33% body fat spent an average of 8.2 months in stage D, which stretched to an average of 11.2 months among girls with 38% body fat, reported Madison T. Ortega, a researcher with the Pediatric Endocrinology Group of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in Research Triangle Park, N.C., who presented the report at the meeting.
 

Ultrasound shows what inspection can’t

Results from “several studies have shown earlier breast development in overweight and obese girls by inspection and palpation,” but the new findings from ultrasound examination provide more nuance about the structural breast changes actually occurring in these adolescents, said Dr. Shaw, who heads the Pediatric Endocrinology Group. The current study “was not designed to capture the onset of breast development,” and “it is possible that increased androgens or insulin resistance in girls with higher body fat interferes with normal breast development,” she explained in an interview.

“The authors showed that the timing and progress of early stages of puberty were not earlier in overweight or obese girls. Luteinizing hormone, the indicator of neuroendocrine pubertal onset, and timing of early stages of breast development were the same in all weight groups. The authors also discovered falsely advanced Turner breast stage designations with ultrasonography in some girls with obesity. This might suggest that prior findings in epidemiologic studies of an earlier start to puberty based mostly on breast development stages identified by self-reported inspection and, rarely, palpation, may have been biased by breast adipose tissue,” said Christine M. Burt Solorzano, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, who was not involved in the study.

“Development of increased follicle-stimulating hormone in late puberty suggests that pubertal tempo, not onset, may be increased in girls with obesity, and goes along with earlier menarche. Their finding of increased androgen levels during mid to late puberty with obesity are consistent with prior findings,” including work published Dr. Burt Solorzano and her associates, she noted. “Delayed timing of advanced breast morphology was unexpected and may reflect relatively lower levels of progesterone in girls with obesity,” a hormone necessary for later stages of breast maturation.

The findings “reinforce that early breast development in the setting of obesity may in fact reflect adipose tissue and not be a true representation of neuroendocrine precocious puberty,” Dr. Burt Solorzano said in an interview. The findings “also suggest that pubertal initiation may not happen earlier in girls with obesity, as has been thought, but rather the tempo of puberty may be more rapid, leading to earlier menarche.”

A possible step toward PCOS

The long-term clinical consequences of the hormonal state linked with overweight and obesity “are unknown,” said Dr. Shaw. However, she and her coworkers followed a few of their subjects with elevated testosterone levels during midpuberty, and several developed signs of early polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) such as irregular menstrual cycles, acne, and hirsutism. “It may be possible to identify girls at high risk for PCOS before menarche,” she suggested.

Dr. Burt Solorzano agreed that delayed breast development in girls with high levels of body fat may reflect inadequate progesterone production, which when coupled with an obesity-related excess level of androgens could put girls at risk for chronic anovulation and later PCOS.

“Weight management during childhood and early puberty may mitigate the adverse effects of obesity on pubertal progression and avoid some of the lifetime complications related to early menarche,” Dr. Burt Solorzano said.

The Body Weight and Puberty Study enrolled 36 girls who were overweight or obese and 54 girls with normal weight. They averaged 11 years of age, with a range of 8.2-14.7 years. Average percent body fat was 41% among the overweight or obese girls and 27% among those with normal weight. The results reported by Ms. Ortega also appeared in a report published Feb 22, 2021 (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgab092).

Dr. Shaw, Ms. Ortega, and Dr. Burt Solorzano had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Girls in late stages of puberty who had elevated levels of body fat showed unusually high levels of several hormones that could contribute to an earlier age of menarche and also slow breast development, according to data from 90 girls who spanned a wide range of body fat in the first longitudinal study to examine links between fat volume, levels of reproductive hormones, and clinical manifestations of hormone action during puberty.

The results showed that girls with greater body fat had higher levels of follicle stimulating hormone, inhibin B, estrone, and certain male-like reproductive hormones, and that this pattern “is specifically tied to body fat,” said Natalie D. Shaw, MD, senior investigator for the study, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“We found that total body fat is associated with the timing of menarche, as others have reported for body weight,” she noted. The new findings showed that every 1% rise in percent total body fat linked with a significant 3% rise in the likelihood of menarche, menstrual onset. In the new study the average age of menarche was 11.7 years among the overweight or obese girls and 12.8 years among those with normal weights.

But the study’s unique use of an average of about three serial ultrasound breast examinations of each subject during an average 4 years of follow-up also showed that higher levels of body fat linked with slowed breast development in later stages, specifically maturation from stage D to stages D/E and E.

For example, girls with 33% body fat spent an average of 8.2 months in stage D, which stretched to an average of 11.2 months among girls with 38% body fat, reported Madison T. Ortega, a researcher with the Pediatric Endocrinology Group of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in Research Triangle Park, N.C., who presented the report at the meeting.
 

Ultrasound shows what inspection can’t

Results from “several studies have shown earlier breast development in overweight and obese girls by inspection and palpation,” but the new findings from ultrasound examination provide more nuance about the structural breast changes actually occurring in these adolescents, said Dr. Shaw, who heads the Pediatric Endocrinology Group. The current study “was not designed to capture the onset of breast development,” and “it is possible that increased androgens or insulin resistance in girls with higher body fat interferes with normal breast development,” she explained in an interview.

“The authors showed that the timing and progress of early stages of puberty were not earlier in overweight or obese girls. Luteinizing hormone, the indicator of neuroendocrine pubertal onset, and timing of early stages of breast development were the same in all weight groups. The authors also discovered falsely advanced Turner breast stage designations with ultrasonography in some girls with obesity. This might suggest that prior findings in epidemiologic studies of an earlier start to puberty based mostly on breast development stages identified by self-reported inspection and, rarely, palpation, may have been biased by breast adipose tissue,” said Christine M. Burt Solorzano, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, who was not involved in the study.

“Development of increased follicle-stimulating hormone in late puberty suggests that pubertal tempo, not onset, may be increased in girls with obesity, and goes along with earlier menarche. Their finding of increased androgen levels during mid to late puberty with obesity are consistent with prior findings,” including work published Dr. Burt Solorzano and her associates, she noted. “Delayed timing of advanced breast morphology was unexpected and may reflect relatively lower levels of progesterone in girls with obesity,” a hormone necessary for later stages of breast maturation.

The findings “reinforce that early breast development in the setting of obesity may in fact reflect adipose tissue and not be a true representation of neuroendocrine precocious puberty,” Dr. Burt Solorzano said in an interview. The findings “also suggest that pubertal initiation may not happen earlier in girls with obesity, as has been thought, but rather the tempo of puberty may be more rapid, leading to earlier menarche.”

A possible step toward PCOS

The long-term clinical consequences of the hormonal state linked with overweight and obesity “are unknown,” said Dr. Shaw. However, she and her coworkers followed a few of their subjects with elevated testosterone levels during midpuberty, and several developed signs of early polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) such as irregular menstrual cycles, acne, and hirsutism. “It may be possible to identify girls at high risk for PCOS before menarche,” she suggested.

Dr. Burt Solorzano agreed that delayed breast development in girls with high levels of body fat may reflect inadequate progesterone production, which when coupled with an obesity-related excess level of androgens could put girls at risk for chronic anovulation and later PCOS.

“Weight management during childhood and early puberty may mitigate the adverse effects of obesity on pubertal progression and avoid some of the lifetime complications related to early menarche,” Dr. Burt Solorzano said.

The Body Weight and Puberty Study enrolled 36 girls who were overweight or obese and 54 girls with normal weight. They averaged 11 years of age, with a range of 8.2-14.7 years. Average percent body fat was 41% among the overweight or obese girls and 27% among those with normal weight. The results reported by Ms. Ortega also appeared in a report published Feb 22, 2021 (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgab092).

Dr. Shaw, Ms. Ortega, and Dr. Burt Solorzano had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Genetic biomarkers for atopic dermatitis (AD) vary from one ethnic group to another, with a mutation in the interleukin-17 receptor A (IL-17RA) gene particularly important in Korean patients, researchers say.

The finding moves researchers another step forward in the effort to figure out which patients are most at risk for the disease and who will respond best to which treatments.

“Because atopic dermatitis is considered a complex trait, we think if there is any method to detect AD gene variations simultaneously, it could be possible to prevent the development of AD and then the atopic march,” said Eung Ho Choi, MD, PhD, a dermatology professor at Yonsei University, Wonju, South Korea.

He presented the finding at the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis (ISAD) 2021 Annual Meeting.

Atopic dermatitis is not caused by a single genetic mutation. But genetic factors play an important role, with about 75% concordance between monozygotic twins versus only 23% for dizygotic twins.

“Genetic biomarkers are needed in predicting the occurrence, severity, and treatment response,” as well as determining the prognosis of atopic dermatitis “and applying it to precision medicine,” Dr. Choi said.

Researchers have identified multiple genetic variations related to atopic dermatitis. One of the most significant genetic contributions found so far is the filaggrin gene variation, which can produce a defective skin barrier, Dr. Choi said. Others are involved in the immune response.

Although variations in the filaggrin gene (FLG ) are the most reliable genetic predictor of atopic dermatitis in Korean patients, they are less common in Korean patients than in Northwestern Europeans, Chinese, and Japanese patients. In Korean patients, the most common reported mutations of this gene are 3321delA and K4022X, Dr. Choi said.

To find out what other gene variants are important in Korean patients with atopic dermatitis, Dr. Choi and his colleagues developed the reverse blot hybridization assay (REBA) to detect skin barrier variations in the FLG, SPINK5 and KLK7 genes, and genes involved in immune response variations, KDR, IL-5RA, IL-9, DEFB1 (Defensin Beta 1), IL-12RB1 (interleukin-12 receptor subunit beta 1), and IL-12RB2.

They compared the prevalence of these variations in 279 Koreans with atopic dermatitis to the prevalence in 224 healthy people without atopic dermatitis and found that the odds ratio for atopic dermatitis increased with the number of these variants: People with three or four variants had a 3.75 times greater risk of AD, and those with 5 or more variants had a 10.3 times greater risk. The number of variants did not correlate to the severity of the disease, however.

The filaggrin variation was present in 13.9% of those with atopic dermatitis. About a quarter (28%) of the patients with AD who had this variation had impetigo, 15% had eczema herpeticum, and 5% had prurigo nodularis. By comparison, 14% of the patients with AD who did not have this variation had impetigo, and 5% had eczema herpeticum, but 19% had prurigo nodularis.

In a separate study, Dr. Choi and his colleagues identified a mutation in IL-17RA, present in 8.1% of 332 patients with AD compared with 3.3% of 245 controls. The patients with IL-17RA mutations all had extrinsic AD.

The variation was associated with longer disease duration, more frequent keratosis pilaris, higher blood eosinophil counts, higher serum total immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, higher house dust mite allergen-specific IgE levels, and a greater need for systemic treatment than patients without the IL-17RA mutation.

Such findings are important for progress in treating atopic dermatitis because the mechanism differs among patients, said Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Excellence in Eczema and professor and chair of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“It’s not one size fits all in atopic dermatitis, and we need better biomarkers that will be able to tell us which treatment will work best for each patient,” she said in an interview.

In addition to genetic biomarkers, she and her colleagues are analyzing proteins involved in inflammation. They are using adhesive tape strips to harvest these markers, a less invasive approach than skin biopsies.

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

Genetic biomarkers for atopic dermatitis (AD) vary from one ethnic group to another, with a mutation in the interleukin-17 receptor A (IL-17RA) gene particularly important in Korean patients, researchers say.

The finding moves researchers another step forward in the effort to figure out which patients are most at risk for the disease and who will respond best to which treatments.

“Because atopic dermatitis is considered a complex trait, we think if there is any method to detect AD gene variations simultaneously, it could be possible to prevent the development of AD and then the atopic march,” said Eung Ho Choi, MD, PhD, a dermatology professor at Yonsei University, Wonju, South Korea.

He presented the finding at the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis (ISAD) 2021 Annual Meeting.

Atopic dermatitis is not caused by a single genetic mutation. But genetic factors play an important role, with about 75% concordance between monozygotic twins versus only 23% for dizygotic twins.

“Genetic biomarkers are needed in predicting the occurrence, severity, and treatment response,” as well as determining the prognosis of atopic dermatitis “and applying it to precision medicine,” Dr. Choi said.

Researchers have identified multiple genetic variations related to atopic dermatitis. One of the most significant genetic contributions found so far is the filaggrin gene variation, which can produce a defective skin barrier, Dr. Choi said. Others are involved in the immune response.

Although variations in the filaggrin gene (FLG ) are the most reliable genetic predictor of atopic dermatitis in Korean patients, they are less common in Korean patients than in Northwestern Europeans, Chinese, and Japanese patients. In Korean patients, the most common reported mutations of this gene are 3321delA and K4022X, Dr. Choi said.

To find out what other gene variants are important in Korean patients with atopic dermatitis, Dr. Choi and his colleagues developed the reverse blot hybridization assay (REBA) to detect skin barrier variations in the FLG, SPINK5 and KLK7 genes, and genes involved in immune response variations, KDR, IL-5RA, IL-9, DEFB1 (Defensin Beta 1), IL-12RB1 (interleukin-12 receptor subunit beta 1), and IL-12RB2.

They compared the prevalence of these variations in 279 Koreans with atopic dermatitis to the prevalence in 224 healthy people without atopic dermatitis and found that the odds ratio for atopic dermatitis increased with the number of these variants: People with three or four variants had a 3.75 times greater risk of AD, and those with 5 or more variants had a 10.3 times greater risk. The number of variants did not correlate to the severity of the disease, however.

The filaggrin variation was present in 13.9% of those with atopic dermatitis. About a quarter (28%) of the patients with AD who had this variation had impetigo, 15% had eczema herpeticum, and 5% had prurigo nodularis. By comparison, 14% of the patients with AD who did not have this variation had impetigo, and 5% had eczema herpeticum, but 19% had prurigo nodularis.

In a separate study, Dr. Choi and his colleagues identified a mutation in IL-17RA, present in 8.1% of 332 patients with AD compared with 3.3% of 245 controls. The patients with IL-17RA mutations all had extrinsic AD.

The variation was associated with longer disease duration, more frequent keratosis pilaris, higher blood eosinophil counts, higher serum total immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, higher house dust mite allergen-specific IgE levels, and a greater need for systemic treatment than patients without the IL-17RA mutation.

Such findings are important for progress in treating atopic dermatitis because the mechanism differs among patients, said Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Excellence in Eczema and professor and chair of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“It’s not one size fits all in atopic dermatitis, and we need better biomarkers that will be able to tell us which treatment will work best for each patient,” she said in an interview.

In addition to genetic biomarkers, she and her colleagues are analyzing proteins involved in inflammation. They are using adhesive tape strips to harvest these markers, a less invasive approach than skin biopsies.

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

Genetic biomarkers for atopic dermatitis (AD) vary from one ethnic group to another, with a mutation in the interleukin-17 receptor A (IL-17RA) gene particularly important in Korean patients, researchers say.

The finding moves researchers another step forward in the effort to figure out which patients are most at risk for the disease and who will respond best to which treatments.

“Because atopic dermatitis is considered a complex trait, we think if there is any method to detect AD gene variations simultaneously, it could be possible to prevent the development of AD and then the atopic march,” said Eung Ho Choi, MD, PhD, a dermatology professor at Yonsei University, Wonju, South Korea.

He presented the finding at the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis (ISAD) 2021 Annual Meeting.

Atopic dermatitis is not caused by a single genetic mutation. But genetic factors play an important role, with about 75% concordance between monozygotic twins versus only 23% for dizygotic twins.

“Genetic biomarkers are needed in predicting the occurrence, severity, and treatment response,” as well as determining the prognosis of atopic dermatitis “and applying it to precision medicine,” Dr. Choi said.

Researchers have identified multiple genetic variations related to atopic dermatitis. One of the most significant genetic contributions found so far is the filaggrin gene variation, which can produce a defective skin barrier, Dr. Choi said. Others are involved in the immune response.

Although variations in the filaggrin gene (FLG ) are the most reliable genetic predictor of atopic dermatitis in Korean patients, they are less common in Korean patients than in Northwestern Europeans, Chinese, and Japanese patients. In Korean patients, the most common reported mutations of this gene are 3321delA and K4022X, Dr. Choi said.

To find out what other gene variants are important in Korean patients with atopic dermatitis, Dr. Choi and his colleagues developed the reverse blot hybridization assay (REBA) to detect skin barrier variations in the FLG, SPINK5 and KLK7 genes, and genes involved in immune response variations, KDR, IL-5RA, IL-9, DEFB1 (Defensin Beta 1), IL-12RB1 (interleukin-12 receptor subunit beta 1), and IL-12RB2.

They compared the prevalence of these variations in 279 Koreans with atopic dermatitis to the prevalence in 224 healthy people without atopic dermatitis and found that the odds ratio for atopic dermatitis increased with the number of these variants: People with three or four variants had a 3.75 times greater risk of AD, and those with 5 or more variants had a 10.3 times greater risk. The number of variants did not correlate to the severity of the disease, however.

The filaggrin variation was present in 13.9% of those with atopic dermatitis. About a quarter (28%) of the patients with AD who had this variation had impetigo, 15% had eczema herpeticum, and 5% had prurigo nodularis. By comparison, 14% of the patients with AD who did not have this variation had impetigo, and 5% had eczema herpeticum, but 19% had prurigo nodularis.

In a separate study, Dr. Choi and his colleagues identified a mutation in IL-17RA, present in 8.1% of 332 patients with AD compared with 3.3% of 245 controls. The patients with IL-17RA mutations all had extrinsic AD.

The variation was associated with longer disease duration, more frequent keratosis pilaris, higher blood eosinophil counts, higher serum total immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, higher house dust mite allergen-specific IgE levels, and a greater need for systemic treatment than patients without the IL-17RA mutation.

Such findings are important for progress in treating atopic dermatitis because the mechanism differs among patients, said Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Excellence in Eczema and professor and chair of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“It’s not one size fits all in atopic dermatitis, and we need better biomarkers that will be able to tell us which treatment will work best for each patient,” she said in an interview.

In addition to genetic biomarkers, she and her colleagues are analyzing proteins involved in inflammation. They are using adhesive tape strips to harvest these markers, a less invasive approach than skin biopsies.

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

Physicians and nonphysicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves ‘doctor,’ a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called ‘Doctor’? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents – over 12,000 – voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it’s appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves ‘doctor,’ although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called “Dr Biden.” The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of ‘doctor.’

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, disagreed with that viewpoint, saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called “professor” when he’s introduced to the public rather than “doctor” to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called “doctor” while physicians were the least likely.
 

Context matters

Large percentages of clinicians – 54% of doctors, 62% of medical students, and 41% of nurses – said that the context matters for being called “doctor.’’

“I earned my PhD in 1995 and my MD in 2000. I think it is contextual. In a research or University setting, “Dr.” seems appropriate for a PhD. That same person in public should probably not hold themselves out as “Dr.” So, maybe MDs and DOs can choose, while others maintain the title in their specific setting.” 

Some readers proposed that people with MDs call themselves physicians rather than doctors. Said one: “Anyone with a terminal doctorate degree has the right to use the word doctor.  As a physician when someone asks what I do, I say: ‘I am a physician.’ Problem solved. There can only be one physician but there are many types of doctors.”

Physicians and nurses differed most in their views. Just 24% of physicians said it was always appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees to call themselves doctor whereas about an equal number (22%) thought it was never appropriate.

In contrast, 43% of nurses (including advance practice nurses) said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorates to be called doctor. Only 16% said it’s never appropriate. 

This difference may reflect the growing number of nurses with doctorate degrees, either a DNP or PhD, who want to be called doctor in clinical settings.

Age made a difference too. Only 16% of physicians younger than age 45 said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorate degrees to be called doctor, compared with 27% of physicians aged 45 and up.

Medical students (31%) were also more likely than physicians to say it was always appropriate for non-MD doctorates to use the title “doctor” and 64% said it depends on the context. This was noteworthy because twice as many medical students as physicians (16% vs. 8%) said they work in academia, research, or military government settings.
 

Too many ‘doctors’ confuse the public

Physicians (70%) were also more likely to say it was always or often confusing for the public to hear someone without a medical degree addressed as “doctor.” Only 6% of physicians thought it was never or rarely confusing.

Nurses disagreed. Just 45% said that it was always or often confusing while 16% said it was never or rarely confusing.

Medical students were more aligned with physicians on this issue – 60% said it was always or often confusing to the public and just 10% said it was never or rarely confusing.  

One reader commented, “The problem is the confusion the ‘doctor’ title causes for patients, especially in a hospital setting. Is the ‘doctor’ a physician, a pharmacist, a psychologist, a nurse, etc., etc.? We need to think not of our own egos but if and how  the confusion about this plethora of titles may be hindering good patient care.”

These concerns are not unfounded. The American Medical Association reported in its Truth in Advertising campaign that “patients mistake physicians with nonphysician providers” based on an online survey of 802 adults in 2018. The participants thought these specialists were MDs: dentists (61%), podiatrists (67%), optometrists (47%), psychologists (43%), doctors of nursing (39%), and chiropractors (27%).

The AMA has advocated that states pass the “Health Care Professional Transparency Act,” which New Jersey has enacted. The law requires all health care professionals dealing with patients to wear a name tag that clearly identifies their licensure. Health care professionals must also display their education, training, and licensure in their office.

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

Physicians and nonphysicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves ‘doctor,’ a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called ‘Doctor’? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents – over 12,000 – voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it’s appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves ‘doctor,’ although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called “Dr Biden.” The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of ‘doctor.’

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, disagreed with that viewpoint, saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called “professor” when he’s introduced to the public rather than “doctor” to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called “doctor” while physicians were the least likely.
 

Context matters

Large percentages of clinicians – 54% of doctors, 62% of medical students, and 41% of nurses – said that the context matters for being called “doctor.’’

“I earned my PhD in 1995 and my MD in 2000. I think it is contextual. In a research or University setting, “Dr.” seems appropriate for a PhD. That same person in public should probably not hold themselves out as “Dr.” So, maybe MDs and DOs can choose, while others maintain the title in their specific setting.” 

Some readers proposed that people with MDs call themselves physicians rather than doctors. Said one: “Anyone with a terminal doctorate degree has the right to use the word doctor.  As a physician when someone asks what I do, I say: ‘I am a physician.’ Problem solved. There can only be one physician but there are many types of doctors.”

Physicians and nurses differed most in their views. Just 24% of physicians said it was always appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees to call themselves doctor whereas about an equal number (22%) thought it was never appropriate.

In contrast, 43% of nurses (including advance practice nurses) said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorates to be called doctor. Only 16% said it’s never appropriate. 

This difference may reflect the growing number of nurses with doctorate degrees, either a DNP or PhD, who want to be called doctor in clinical settings.

Age made a difference too. Only 16% of physicians younger than age 45 said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorate degrees to be called doctor, compared with 27% of physicians aged 45 and up.

Medical students (31%) were also more likely than physicians to say it was always appropriate for non-MD doctorates to use the title “doctor” and 64% said it depends on the context. This was noteworthy because twice as many medical students as physicians (16% vs. 8%) said they work in academia, research, or military government settings.
 

Too many ‘doctors’ confuse the public

Physicians (70%) were also more likely to say it was always or often confusing for the public to hear someone without a medical degree addressed as “doctor.” Only 6% of physicians thought it was never or rarely confusing.

Nurses disagreed. Just 45% said that it was always or often confusing while 16% said it was never or rarely confusing.

Medical students were more aligned with physicians on this issue – 60% said it was always or often confusing to the public and just 10% said it was never or rarely confusing.  

One reader commented, “The problem is the confusion the ‘doctor’ title causes for patients, especially in a hospital setting. Is the ‘doctor’ a physician, a pharmacist, a psychologist, a nurse, etc., etc.? We need to think not of our own egos but if and how  the confusion about this plethora of titles may be hindering good patient care.”

These concerns are not unfounded. The American Medical Association reported in its Truth in Advertising campaign that “patients mistake physicians with nonphysician providers” based on an online survey of 802 adults in 2018. The participants thought these specialists were MDs: dentists (61%), podiatrists (67%), optometrists (47%), psychologists (43%), doctors of nursing (39%), and chiropractors (27%).

The AMA has advocated that states pass the “Health Care Professional Transparency Act,” which New Jersey has enacted. The law requires all health care professionals dealing with patients to wear a name tag that clearly identifies their licensure. Health care professionals must also display their education, training, and licensure in their office.

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

Physicians and nonphysicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves ‘doctor,’ a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called ‘Doctor’? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents – over 12,000 – voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it’s appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves ‘doctor,’ although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called “Dr Biden.” The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of ‘doctor.’

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, disagreed with that viewpoint, saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called “professor” when he’s introduced to the public rather than “doctor” to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called “doctor” while physicians were the least likely.
 

Context matters

Large percentages of clinicians – 54% of doctors, 62% of medical students, and 41% of nurses – said that the context matters for being called “doctor.’’

“I earned my PhD in 1995 and my MD in 2000. I think it is contextual. In a research or University setting, “Dr.” seems appropriate for a PhD. That same person in public should probably not hold themselves out as “Dr.” So, maybe MDs and DOs can choose, while others maintain the title in their specific setting.” 

Some readers proposed that people with MDs call themselves physicians rather than doctors. Said one: “Anyone with a terminal doctorate degree has the right to use the word doctor.  As a physician when someone asks what I do, I say: ‘I am a physician.’ Problem solved. There can only be one physician but there are many types of doctors.”

Physicians and nurses differed most in their views. Just 24% of physicians said it was always appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees to call themselves doctor whereas about an equal number (22%) thought it was never appropriate.

In contrast, 43% of nurses (including advance practice nurses) said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorates to be called doctor. Only 16% said it’s never appropriate. 

This difference may reflect the growing number of nurses with doctorate degrees, either a DNP or PhD, who want to be called doctor in clinical settings.

Age made a difference too. Only 16% of physicians younger than age 45 said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorate degrees to be called doctor, compared with 27% of physicians aged 45 and up.

Medical students (31%) were also more likely than physicians to say it was always appropriate for non-MD doctorates to use the title “doctor” and 64% said it depends on the context. This was noteworthy because twice as many medical students as physicians (16% vs. 8%) said they work in academia, research, or military government settings.
 

Too many ‘doctors’ confuse the public

Physicians (70%) were also more likely to say it was always or often confusing for the public to hear someone without a medical degree addressed as “doctor.” Only 6% of physicians thought it was never or rarely confusing.

Nurses disagreed. Just 45% said that it was always or often confusing while 16% said it was never or rarely confusing.

Medical students were more aligned with physicians on this issue – 60% said it was always or often confusing to the public and just 10% said it was never or rarely confusing.  

One reader commented, “The problem is the confusion the ‘doctor’ title causes for patients, especially in a hospital setting. Is the ‘doctor’ a physician, a pharmacist, a psychologist, a nurse, etc., etc.? We need to think not of our own egos but if and how  the confusion about this plethora of titles may be hindering good patient care.”

These concerns are not unfounded. The American Medical Association reported in its Truth in Advertising campaign that “patients mistake physicians with nonphysician providers” based on an online survey of 802 adults in 2018. The participants thought these specialists were MDs: dentists (61%), podiatrists (67%), optometrists (47%), psychologists (43%), doctors of nursing (39%), and chiropractors (27%).

The AMA has advocated that states pass the “Health Care Professional Transparency Act,” which New Jersey has enacted. The law requires all health care professionals dealing with patients to wear a name tag that clearly identifies their licensure. Health care professionals must also display their education, training, and licensure in their office.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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