User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Are early childhood viral infections linked with asthma?
MARSEILLE, France – It is well known that viral infections, especially respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and rhinovirus (RV), exacerbate symptoms of asthma. But could they also play a part in triggering the onset of asthma?
The link between RSV and RV infections in early childhood and the development of asthma symptoms is well established, said Camille Taillé, MD, PhD, of the department of respiratory medicine and the rare diseases center of excellence at Bichat Hospital, Paris. But getting asthma is probably not just a matter of having a viral infection at a young age or of having a severe form of it. Gene polymorphisms, immune system disorders, and preexisting atopy are also associated with the risk of asthma. This was the focus of the 27th French-language respiratory medicine conference, held in Marseille, France.
RV and RSV
Persons with asthma are vulnerable to certain viral respiratory infections, in particular the flu and RV, which can exacerbate asthma symptoms. Inhaled corticosteroids have an overall protective effect against viral-induced exacerbations. For worsening asthma symptoms during an epidemic or pandemic, there is no contraindication to inhaled or oral corticosteroids.
Young children from the time of birth to 4 years of age are particularly susceptible to viral respiratory infections. According to data from France’s clinical surveillance network, Sentinelles, from the period covering winter 2021-2022, the rate of incidence per 100,000 inhabitants was systematically greater for the 0 to 4-year age range than for older age ranges.
Of the most common viruses that infect young children, RV, the virus that causes the common cold, is a nonenveloped RNA virus from the enterovirus family. There are 160 types, which are classified into three strains (A, B, and C). Of those strains, A and C confer the most severe infections. The virus is highly variable, which makes developing a vaccine challenging. The virus circulates year round, usually peaking in the fall and at the end of spring. RSV is an RNA virus that is classed as a respiratory virus. It comprises two serotypes: type A and B. Almost all children will have been infected with RSV by the time they are 2 years old. Epidemics occur each year during winter or in early spring in temperate climates. Vaccines are currently being developed and will soon be marketed. A monoclonal antibody (palivizumab), which targets fusion proteins of the virus, is available as prophylactic treatment for at-risk children.
RSV infection
During an RSV infection, the severe inflammation of the bronchial and alveolar wall causes acute respiratory distress. “But not all infants will develop severe forms of bronchiolitis,” said Dr. Taillé. “The risk factors for the severe form of the illness are well known: being under 6 months of age, prematurity, comorbidities (neurovascular, cardiovascular, respiratory, etc.), history of a stay in a neonatal intensive care unit at birth, living in low socioeconomic status towns, and exposure to smoking.”
Asthma development
The issue of whether or not viral diseases cause asthma has been the subject of intense debate. The studies are starting to stack up, however. They seem to show that RSV or RV infections are associated with the risk of subsequent asthma development. “For example, in a study published in 2022,” said Dr. Taillé, “in children admitted with an RSV infection, 60% of those who had been admitted to neonatal intensive care presented with symptoms of asthma between 3 and 6 years of age, compared with 18% of those who had had a milder case of RSV (admitted to nonintensive care settings). A serious RSV infection is a risk factor for later development of asthma.”
However, the link between RSV and later onset of asthma is also seen in milder cases of the infection. The American COAST study was designed to examine the effect of childhood respiratory infections on the risk of developing asthma. Researchers followed 259 newborns prospectively for 1, 3, and 6 years. To qualify, at least one parent was required to have respiratory allergies (defined as one or more positive aeroallergen skin tests) or a history of physician-diagnosed asthma. Regular samples taken during infectious episodes identified a virus in 90% of cases.
“We now know that RSV is not the only pathogen responsible for bronchiolitis. RV is often found, now that it can routinely be detected by PCR tests,” said Dr. Taillé. In the COAST study, the onset of wheezing during an RSV or RV infection in children aged 0-3 years was associated with an increased risk of asthma at 6 years of age. Globally, 28% of children infected by either virus were deemed to have asthma at 6 years of age. “There is clearly a link between having had a respiratory virus like RV or RSV and getting asthma symptoms at 6 years of age,” said Dr. Taillé. “What’s more, the effect of RV is not changed in this study by allergic sensitization.”
Many articles have been published on this topic. The results of cohort studies, from Japan to Finland and the United States, Italy, and Australia, are consistent with each other. Persons who have contracted RV or RSV are more likely to suffer from recurrent wheezing or asthma, especially if the infection is contracted in infancy or if it is severe. “Some studies even suggest that viral-induced asthma is more severe,” said Dr. Taillé. “For example, a Scottish study ... showed that children with a previous history of RSV infection had more hospital admissions and required more medication than asthmatics with no history of an RSV infection, suggesting the link between a previous history of RSV infection and the development of a more severe form of asthma.”
Reaching adulthood
Few longitudinal cohorts explore this issue in adulthood. A relatively old study reported an increased rate of asthma among adults who had required hospital admission for bronchiolitis in early childhood, as well as the effect on respiratory function. A 2023 study of the effects of respiratory illnesses in childhood reported similar findings. The authors evaluated lung structure and function via CT scans of 39 patients aged 26 years and concluded that participants who had been infected with RSV in childhood presented with increased air trapping, which is suggestive of airway abnormalities, possibly linked to a direct effect of viruses on lung development.
Mechanisms of action
“The real question is understanding if it’s the virus itself that causes asthma, or if the virus is simply uncovering underlying asthma in predisposed children,” said Dr. Taillé. From 30% to 40% of children who have had RSV will go on to develop wheezing or asthma in childhood. This observation suggests that there are factors favoring the development of asthma after infection with RSV. It has been shown that there is a genetic predisposition for RV. The roles of cigarette smoke, air pollution, environmental exposures to allergens, rapid urbanization, low vitamin D levels, low maternal omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid levels, maternal stress, and depression have also been highlighted.
It would seem that RSV and RV are a bit different. RV is thought to be associated with the development of asthma and wheezing, especially in people with a preexisting atopy or a reduced interferon immune response, while RSV, which occurs at a younger age and among the most vulnerable populations, seems to act independently of a person’s predisposition to allergies. RV stands out from other viral factors, owing to its tendency to create a Th2-biased inflammatory environment and its association with specific risk genes in people predisposed to asthma development (CDHR3).
Dr. Taillé has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MARSEILLE, France – It is well known that viral infections, especially respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and rhinovirus (RV), exacerbate symptoms of asthma. But could they also play a part in triggering the onset of asthma?
The link between RSV and RV infections in early childhood and the development of asthma symptoms is well established, said Camille Taillé, MD, PhD, of the department of respiratory medicine and the rare diseases center of excellence at Bichat Hospital, Paris. But getting asthma is probably not just a matter of having a viral infection at a young age or of having a severe form of it. Gene polymorphisms, immune system disorders, and preexisting atopy are also associated with the risk of asthma. This was the focus of the 27th French-language respiratory medicine conference, held in Marseille, France.
RV and RSV
Persons with asthma are vulnerable to certain viral respiratory infections, in particular the flu and RV, which can exacerbate asthma symptoms. Inhaled corticosteroids have an overall protective effect against viral-induced exacerbations. For worsening asthma symptoms during an epidemic or pandemic, there is no contraindication to inhaled or oral corticosteroids.
Young children from the time of birth to 4 years of age are particularly susceptible to viral respiratory infections. According to data from France’s clinical surveillance network, Sentinelles, from the period covering winter 2021-2022, the rate of incidence per 100,000 inhabitants was systematically greater for the 0 to 4-year age range than for older age ranges.
Of the most common viruses that infect young children, RV, the virus that causes the common cold, is a nonenveloped RNA virus from the enterovirus family. There are 160 types, which are classified into three strains (A, B, and C). Of those strains, A and C confer the most severe infections. The virus is highly variable, which makes developing a vaccine challenging. The virus circulates year round, usually peaking in the fall and at the end of spring. RSV is an RNA virus that is classed as a respiratory virus. It comprises two serotypes: type A and B. Almost all children will have been infected with RSV by the time they are 2 years old. Epidemics occur each year during winter or in early spring in temperate climates. Vaccines are currently being developed and will soon be marketed. A monoclonal antibody (palivizumab), which targets fusion proteins of the virus, is available as prophylactic treatment for at-risk children.
RSV infection
During an RSV infection, the severe inflammation of the bronchial and alveolar wall causes acute respiratory distress. “But not all infants will develop severe forms of bronchiolitis,” said Dr. Taillé. “The risk factors for the severe form of the illness are well known: being under 6 months of age, prematurity, comorbidities (neurovascular, cardiovascular, respiratory, etc.), history of a stay in a neonatal intensive care unit at birth, living in low socioeconomic status towns, and exposure to smoking.”
Asthma development
The issue of whether or not viral diseases cause asthma has been the subject of intense debate. The studies are starting to stack up, however. They seem to show that RSV or RV infections are associated with the risk of subsequent asthma development. “For example, in a study published in 2022,” said Dr. Taillé, “in children admitted with an RSV infection, 60% of those who had been admitted to neonatal intensive care presented with symptoms of asthma between 3 and 6 years of age, compared with 18% of those who had had a milder case of RSV (admitted to nonintensive care settings). A serious RSV infection is a risk factor for later development of asthma.”
However, the link between RSV and later onset of asthma is also seen in milder cases of the infection. The American COAST study was designed to examine the effect of childhood respiratory infections on the risk of developing asthma. Researchers followed 259 newborns prospectively for 1, 3, and 6 years. To qualify, at least one parent was required to have respiratory allergies (defined as one or more positive aeroallergen skin tests) or a history of physician-diagnosed asthma. Regular samples taken during infectious episodes identified a virus in 90% of cases.
“We now know that RSV is not the only pathogen responsible for bronchiolitis. RV is often found, now that it can routinely be detected by PCR tests,” said Dr. Taillé. In the COAST study, the onset of wheezing during an RSV or RV infection in children aged 0-3 years was associated with an increased risk of asthma at 6 years of age. Globally, 28% of children infected by either virus were deemed to have asthma at 6 years of age. “There is clearly a link between having had a respiratory virus like RV or RSV and getting asthma symptoms at 6 years of age,” said Dr. Taillé. “What’s more, the effect of RV is not changed in this study by allergic sensitization.”
Many articles have been published on this topic. The results of cohort studies, from Japan to Finland and the United States, Italy, and Australia, are consistent with each other. Persons who have contracted RV or RSV are more likely to suffer from recurrent wheezing or asthma, especially if the infection is contracted in infancy or if it is severe. “Some studies even suggest that viral-induced asthma is more severe,” said Dr. Taillé. “For example, a Scottish study ... showed that children with a previous history of RSV infection had more hospital admissions and required more medication than asthmatics with no history of an RSV infection, suggesting the link between a previous history of RSV infection and the development of a more severe form of asthma.”
Reaching adulthood
Few longitudinal cohorts explore this issue in adulthood. A relatively old study reported an increased rate of asthma among adults who had required hospital admission for bronchiolitis in early childhood, as well as the effect on respiratory function. A 2023 study of the effects of respiratory illnesses in childhood reported similar findings. The authors evaluated lung structure and function via CT scans of 39 patients aged 26 years and concluded that participants who had been infected with RSV in childhood presented with increased air trapping, which is suggestive of airway abnormalities, possibly linked to a direct effect of viruses on lung development.
Mechanisms of action
“The real question is understanding if it’s the virus itself that causes asthma, or if the virus is simply uncovering underlying asthma in predisposed children,” said Dr. Taillé. From 30% to 40% of children who have had RSV will go on to develop wheezing or asthma in childhood. This observation suggests that there are factors favoring the development of asthma after infection with RSV. It has been shown that there is a genetic predisposition for RV. The roles of cigarette smoke, air pollution, environmental exposures to allergens, rapid urbanization, low vitamin D levels, low maternal omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid levels, maternal stress, and depression have also been highlighted.
It would seem that RSV and RV are a bit different. RV is thought to be associated with the development of asthma and wheezing, especially in people with a preexisting atopy or a reduced interferon immune response, while RSV, which occurs at a younger age and among the most vulnerable populations, seems to act independently of a person’s predisposition to allergies. RV stands out from other viral factors, owing to its tendency to create a Th2-biased inflammatory environment and its association with specific risk genes in people predisposed to asthma development (CDHR3).
Dr. Taillé has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MARSEILLE, France – It is well known that viral infections, especially respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and rhinovirus (RV), exacerbate symptoms of asthma. But could they also play a part in triggering the onset of asthma?
The link between RSV and RV infections in early childhood and the development of asthma symptoms is well established, said Camille Taillé, MD, PhD, of the department of respiratory medicine and the rare diseases center of excellence at Bichat Hospital, Paris. But getting asthma is probably not just a matter of having a viral infection at a young age or of having a severe form of it. Gene polymorphisms, immune system disorders, and preexisting atopy are also associated with the risk of asthma. This was the focus of the 27th French-language respiratory medicine conference, held in Marseille, France.
RV and RSV
Persons with asthma are vulnerable to certain viral respiratory infections, in particular the flu and RV, which can exacerbate asthma symptoms. Inhaled corticosteroids have an overall protective effect against viral-induced exacerbations. For worsening asthma symptoms during an epidemic or pandemic, there is no contraindication to inhaled or oral corticosteroids.
Young children from the time of birth to 4 years of age are particularly susceptible to viral respiratory infections. According to data from France’s clinical surveillance network, Sentinelles, from the period covering winter 2021-2022, the rate of incidence per 100,000 inhabitants was systematically greater for the 0 to 4-year age range than for older age ranges.
Of the most common viruses that infect young children, RV, the virus that causes the common cold, is a nonenveloped RNA virus from the enterovirus family. There are 160 types, which are classified into three strains (A, B, and C). Of those strains, A and C confer the most severe infections. The virus is highly variable, which makes developing a vaccine challenging. The virus circulates year round, usually peaking in the fall and at the end of spring. RSV is an RNA virus that is classed as a respiratory virus. It comprises two serotypes: type A and B. Almost all children will have been infected with RSV by the time they are 2 years old. Epidemics occur each year during winter or in early spring in temperate climates. Vaccines are currently being developed and will soon be marketed. A monoclonal antibody (palivizumab), which targets fusion proteins of the virus, is available as prophylactic treatment for at-risk children.
RSV infection
During an RSV infection, the severe inflammation of the bronchial and alveolar wall causes acute respiratory distress. “But not all infants will develop severe forms of bronchiolitis,” said Dr. Taillé. “The risk factors for the severe form of the illness are well known: being under 6 months of age, prematurity, comorbidities (neurovascular, cardiovascular, respiratory, etc.), history of a stay in a neonatal intensive care unit at birth, living in low socioeconomic status towns, and exposure to smoking.”
Asthma development
The issue of whether or not viral diseases cause asthma has been the subject of intense debate. The studies are starting to stack up, however. They seem to show that RSV or RV infections are associated with the risk of subsequent asthma development. “For example, in a study published in 2022,” said Dr. Taillé, “in children admitted with an RSV infection, 60% of those who had been admitted to neonatal intensive care presented with symptoms of asthma between 3 and 6 years of age, compared with 18% of those who had had a milder case of RSV (admitted to nonintensive care settings). A serious RSV infection is a risk factor for later development of asthma.”
However, the link between RSV and later onset of asthma is also seen in milder cases of the infection. The American COAST study was designed to examine the effect of childhood respiratory infections on the risk of developing asthma. Researchers followed 259 newborns prospectively for 1, 3, and 6 years. To qualify, at least one parent was required to have respiratory allergies (defined as one or more positive aeroallergen skin tests) or a history of physician-diagnosed asthma. Regular samples taken during infectious episodes identified a virus in 90% of cases.
“We now know that RSV is not the only pathogen responsible for bronchiolitis. RV is often found, now that it can routinely be detected by PCR tests,” said Dr. Taillé. In the COAST study, the onset of wheezing during an RSV or RV infection in children aged 0-3 years was associated with an increased risk of asthma at 6 years of age. Globally, 28% of children infected by either virus were deemed to have asthma at 6 years of age. “There is clearly a link between having had a respiratory virus like RV or RSV and getting asthma symptoms at 6 years of age,” said Dr. Taillé. “What’s more, the effect of RV is not changed in this study by allergic sensitization.”
Many articles have been published on this topic. The results of cohort studies, from Japan to Finland and the United States, Italy, and Australia, are consistent with each other. Persons who have contracted RV or RSV are more likely to suffer from recurrent wheezing or asthma, especially if the infection is contracted in infancy or if it is severe. “Some studies even suggest that viral-induced asthma is more severe,” said Dr. Taillé. “For example, a Scottish study ... showed that children with a previous history of RSV infection had more hospital admissions and required more medication than asthmatics with no history of an RSV infection, suggesting the link between a previous history of RSV infection and the development of a more severe form of asthma.”
Reaching adulthood
Few longitudinal cohorts explore this issue in adulthood. A relatively old study reported an increased rate of asthma among adults who had required hospital admission for bronchiolitis in early childhood, as well as the effect on respiratory function. A 2023 study of the effects of respiratory illnesses in childhood reported similar findings. The authors evaluated lung structure and function via CT scans of 39 patients aged 26 years and concluded that participants who had been infected with RSV in childhood presented with increased air trapping, which is suggestive of airway abnormalities, possibly linked to a direct effect of viruses on lung development.
Mechanisms of action
“The real question is understanding if it’s the virus itself that causes asthma, or if the virus is simply uncovering underlying asthma in predisposed children,” said Dr. Taillé. From 30% to 40% of children who have had RSV will go on to develop wheezing or asthma in childhood. This observation suggests that there are factors favoring the development of asthma after infection with RSV. It has been shown that there is a genetic predisposition for RV. The roles of cigarette smoke, air pollution, environmental exposures to allergens, rapid urbanization, low vitamin D levels, low maternal omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid levels, maternal stress, and depression have also been highlighted.
It would seem that RSV and RV are a bit different. RV is thought to be associated with the development of asthma and wheezing, especially in people with a preexisting atopy or a reduced interferon immune response, while RSV, which occurs at a younger age and among the most vulnerable populations, seems to act independently of a person’s predisposition to allergies. RV stands out from other viral factors, owing to its tendency to create a Th2-biased inflammatory environment and its association with specific risk genes in people predisposed to asthma development (CDHR3).
Dr. Taillé has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA warns about anaphylaxis after false-negative allergen tests
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning about the potential for patients to experience anaphylactic reactions after a negative skin test with any allergenic extract used to diagnose food allergies.
The FDA is requiring that an anaphylaxis warning after false-negative food allergen skin test results be added to the labels of these products in light of reports to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), according to a March 3 statement.
The action follows the recognition of an increase in adverse event reports of false-negative test results with specific lots of “ALK-Abello’s Allergenic Extract-Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) – For Diagnostic Use Only.” Some of these reports “were associated with life-threatening anaphylaxis from subsequent exposure to peanut,” according to the statement. “FDA determined that the risk of anaphylaxis following false-negative food allergen skin test results is applicable to all allergenic extracts for the diagnosis of food allergies,” the statement notes.
To date, four lots of allergenic extracts have been voluntarily withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer, in November and December 2022, and should not be used.
Although some allergenic extracts are standardized, those used in the diagnosis of food allergy currently licensed by the FDA for use in the United States are nonstandardized, so potency may vary by lot.
The FDA advises health care professionals to consider confirming a negative skin test with serologic testing for peanut-specific IgE or conducting a medically supervised oral food challenge in patients, “based on the patient’s clinical history and the index of suspicion.”
The FDA also urges patients to discuss negative food allergen skin test results with their health care providers to determine the possible need for additional testing and to review the symptoms of a severe allergic reaction.
Any adverse events or side effects associated with allergenic products should be reported to the FDA via the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning about the potential for patients to experience anaphylactic reactions after a negative skin test with any allergenic extract used to diagnose food allergies.
The FDA is requiring that an anaphylaxis warning after false-negative food allergen skin test results be added to the labels of these products in light of reports to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), according to a March 3 statement.
The action follows the recognition of an increase in adverse event reports of false-negative test results with specific lots of “ALK-Abello’s Allergenic Extract-Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) – For Diagnostic Use Only.” Some of these reports “were associated with life-threatening anaphylaxis from subsequent exposure to peanut,” according to the statement. “FDA determined that the risk of anaphylaxis following false-negative food allergen skin test results is applicable to all allergenic extracts for the diagnosis of food allergies,” the statement notes.
To date, four lots of allergenic extracts have been voluntarily withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer, in November and December 2022, and should not be used.
Although some allergenic extracts are standardized, those used in the diagnosis of food allergy currently licensed by the FDA for use in the United States are nonstandardized, so potency may vary by lot.
The FDA advises health care professionals to consider confirming a negative skin test with serologic testing for peanut-specific IgE or conducting a medically supervised oral food challenge in patients, “based on the patient’s clinical history and the index of suspicion.”
The FDA also urges patients to discuss negative food allergen skin test results with their health care providers to determine the possible need for additional testing and to review the symptoms of a severe allergic reaction.
Any adverse events or side effects associated with allergenic products should be reported to the FDA via the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning about the potential for patients to experience anaphylactic reactions after a negative skin test with any allergenic extract used to diagnose food allergies.
The FDA is requiring that an anaphylaxis warning after false-negative food allergen skin test results be added to the labels of these products in light of reports to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), according to a March 3 statement.
The action follows the recognition of an increase in adverse event reports of false-negative test results with specific lots of “ALK-Abello’s Allergenic Extract-Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) – For Diagnostic Use Only.” Some of these reports “were associated with life-threatening anaphylaxis from subsequent exposure to peanut,” according to the statement. “FDA determined that the risk of anaphylaxis following false-negative food allergen skin test results is applicable to all allergenic extracts for the diagnosis of food allergies,” the statement notes.
To date, four lots of allergenic extracts have been voluntarily withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer, in November and December 2022, and should not be used.
Although some allergenic extracts are standardized, those used in the diagnosis of food allergy currently licensed by the FDA for use in the United States are nonstandardized, so potency may vary by lot.
The FDA advises health care professionals to consider confirming a negative skin test with serologic testing for peanut-specific IgE or conducting a medically supervised oral food challenge in patients, “based on the patient’s clinical history and the index of suspicion.”
The FDA also urges patients to discuss negative food allergen skin test results with their health care providers to determine the possible need for additional testing and to review the symptoms of a severe allergic reaction.
Any adverse events or side effects associated with allergenic products should be reported to the FDA via the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The 2023 ‘Meddy’ awards
Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...
Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster
M*A*S*H (1970)
The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.
Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment
Field of Dreams (1989)
When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.
Most unethical doctor
Elvis (2022)
No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”
Best self-use of a defibrillator
Casino Royale (2006)
We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.
Best worst patient lying about an injury
Tár (2022)
Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.
Best therapy for a speech disorder
The King’s Speech (2010)
Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...
Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster
M*A*S*H (1970)
The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.
Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment
Field of Dreams (1989)
When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.
Most unethical doctor
Elvis (2022)
No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”
Best self-use of a defibrillator
Casino Royale (2006)
We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.
Best worst patient lying about an injury
Tár (2022)
Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.
Best therapy for a speech disorder
The King’s Speech (2010)
Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...
Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster
M*A*S*H (1970)
The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.
Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment
Field of Dreams (1989)
When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.
Most unethical doctor
Elvis (2022)
No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”
Best self-use of a defibrillator
Casino Royale (2006)
We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.
Best worst patient lying about an injury
Tár (2022)
Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.
Best therapy for a speech disorder
The King’s Speech (2010)
Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Neonatal bilirubin meters need better accuracy
Despite their convenience and low cost, , a systematic review and meta-analysis reports in JAMA Pediatrics. Lauren E.H. Westenberg, MD, of the division of neonatology at Erasmus MC Sophia Children’s Hospital in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues reported that POC meters tended to underestimate neonatal bilirubin levels, compared with conventional laboratory-based quantification.
Furthermore, pooled estimates from 10 studies found these devices to be too imprecise overall, with substantial outer-confidence bounds. On the plus side, Dr. Westenberg’s group said POC bilirubin testing was as much as 60 times faster than lab measurement, and used 40-60 times less blood. “Conventional laboratory-based bilirubin quantification usually requires up to 500 mcL, but sometimes even 1,500 mcL, while POC tests require up to 50 mcL, which means less stress for the baby,” Dr. Westenberg said in an interview. “Especially when infants are cared for at home, it usually takes a few hours between deciding to quantify bilirubin and obtaining the test result. Meanwhile, bilirubin levels may rise unnoticed.”
On the positive side, POC devices are useful where laboratories in low-resource areas may be remote, poorly equipped, and not always able to provide an accurate bilirubin level. “As a result, the diagnosis of jaundice relies mainly on visual inspection, which is known to be unreliable,” she said. POC devices, however, need near-perfect conditions for optimal use, and results can be affected by humidity, preanalytic conditions such as test strip saturation, and hematocrit.
Yet results from these devices have recently proven to have acceptable accuracy, resulting, for example, in the same clinical decisions as the reference standard in 90.7% of times according to a 2022 study in a hospital in Malawi.
Nevertheless, the authors concluded that the devices’ imprecision limits their widespread use in neonatal jaundice management, especially when accurate lab-based bilirubin quantification is available. Results from these POC tests should be interpreted with caution, Dr. Westenberg said. In terms of clinical decision-making, POC devices entail a risk of missing neonates with jaundice who need phototherapy or, in the case of overestimation, of starting phototherapy too early.
The study
The meta-analysis included nine cross-sectional and one prospective cohort study representing 3,122 neonates in Europe, Africa, and East and Southeast Asia. Two tests with 30-minute turnaround times were evaluated in neonates 0-28 days old. The Bilistick device was evaluated in eight studies and the BiliSpec (now called BiliDX) in just two studies. Three of the studies had a high risk of bias.
A total of 3,122 measurements paired with lab quantification showed a pooled mean difference in total bilirubin levels for the POC devices of –14 micromol/L, with pooled 95% confidence bounds (CBs) of –106 to 78 micromol/L. For the Bilistick, the pooled mean difference was –17 micromol/L (95% CBs, –114 to 80 micromol/L). Of the two devices, the Bilistick was more likely to have a failed quantification against the reference standard.
Context for POC devices
Commenting on the meta-analysis but not involved in it, Rebecca Richards-Kortum, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at Rice University in Houston, noted that both devices were developed specifically to address needs in low-resource settings. “I don’t think the meta-analysis acknowledges this rationale sufficiently,” she said. “It feels like this paper is comparing apples to oranges and then criticizing the apples for not being oranges,” said Dr. Richards-Kortum, who helped develop the BiliSpec test.
Similarly, Anne S. Lee, MD, MPH, an associate professor of pediatrics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and not a participant in the meta-analysis, also stressed that POC devices are designed for scenarios where lab-based results are not widely available. “In a broad sense, the devices fill an important gap, both in low- and middle-income countries, as well as in the U.S. when laboratory capacity is not readily available,” said Dr. Lee. She was involved the development of the Bili-ruler icterometer, which proved to be diagnostically accurate in Bangladeshi newborns.
“Access to this technology is a critical way to address health disparities even in the U.S.,” Dr. Lee continued. “We have heard of the need for this technology from the Indian health services and Alaskan health services, where decisions are made to airlift a child based on a visual inspection alone.”
More broadly, however, cautioned Dr. Westenberg, the total allowable error and the permissible limits of uncertainty in neonatal bilirubin quantification need to be defined – irrespective of the method used. “Accurate measurement of bilirubin is difficult as has been demonstrated in so-called external quality assessment (EQA) programs that exist for laboratory-based bilirubin methods,” she said. “EQA programs for POC bilirubin devices that include a reference method as a gold standard may contribute to adaptation of the device and improving POC test imprecision.”
This work was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Richards-Kortum and Dr. Lee have both been involved in the development of POC devices for assessing neonatal bilirubin levels.
Despite their convenience and low cost, , a systematic review and meta-analysis reports in JAMA Pediatrics. Lauren E.H. Westenberg, MD, of the division of neonatology at Erasmus MC Sophia Children’s Hospital in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues reported that POC meters tended to underestimate neonatal bilirubin levels, compared with conventional laboratory-based quantification.
Furthermore, pooled estimates from 10 studies found these devices to be too imprecise overall, with substantial outer-confidence bounds. On the plus side, Dr. Westenberg’s group said POC bilirubin testing was as much as 60 times faster than lab measurement, and used 40-60 times less blood. “Conventional laboratory-based bilirubin quantification usually requires up to 500 mcL, but sometimes even 1,500 mcL, while POC tests require up to 50 mcL, which means less stress for the baby,” Dr. Westenberg said in an interview. “Especially when infants are cared for at home, it usually takes a few hours between deciding to quantify bilirubin and obtaining the test result. Meanwhile, bilirubin levels may rise unnoticed.”
On the positive side, POC devices are useful where laboratories in low-resource areas may be remote, poorly equipped, and not always able to provide an accurate bilirubin level. “As a result, the diagnosis of jaundice relies mainly on visual inspection, which is known to be unreliable,” she said. POC devices, however, need near-perfect conditions for optimal use, and results can be affected by humidity, preanalytic conditions such as test strip saturation, and hematocrit.
Yet results from these devices have recently proven to have acceptable accuracy, resulting, for example, in the same clinical decisions as the reference standard in 90.7% of times according to a 2022 study in a hospital in Malawi.
Nevertheless, the authors concluded that the devices’ imprecision limits their widespread use in neonatal jaundice management, especially when accurate lab-based bilirubin quantification is available. Results from these POC tests should be interpreted with caution, Dr. Westenberg said. In terms of clinical decision-making, POC devices entail a risk of missing neonates with jaundice who need phototherapy or, in the case of overestimation, of starting phototherapy too early.
The study
The meta-analysis included nine cross-sectional and one prospective cohort study representing 3,122 neonates in Europe, Africa, and East and Southeast Asia. Two tests with 30-minute turnaround times were evaluated in neonates 0-28 days old. The Bilistick device was evaluated in eight studies and the BiliSpec (now called BiliDX) in just two studies. Three of the studies had a high risk of bias.
A total of 3,122 measurements paired with lab quantification showed a pooled mean difference in total bilirubin levels for the POC devices of –14 micromol/L, with pooled 95% confidence bounds (CBs) of –106 to 78 micromol/L. For the Bilistick, the pooled mean difference was –17 micromol/L (95% CBs, –114 to 80 micromol/L). Of the two devices, the Bilistick was more likely to have a failed quantification against the reference standard.
Context for POC devices
Commenting on the meta-analysis but not involved in it, Rebecca Richards-Kortum, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at Rice University in Houston, noted that both devices were developed specifically to address needs in low-resource settings. “I don’t think the meta-analysis acknowledges this rationale sufficiently,” she said. “It feels like this paper is comparing apples to oranges and then criticizing the apples for not being oranges,” said Dr. Richards-Kortum, who helped develop the BiliSpec test.
Similarly, Anne S. Lee, MD, MPH, an associate professor of pediatrics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and not a participant in the meta-analysis, also stressed that POC devices are designed for scenarios where lab-based results are not widely available. “In a broad sense, the devices fill an important gap, both in low- and middle-income countries, as well as in the U.S. when laboratory capacity is not readily available,” said Dr. Lee. She was involved the development of the Bili-ruler icterometer, which proved to be diagnostically accurate in Bangladeshi newborns.
“Access to this technology is a critical way to address health disparities even in the U.S.,” Dr. Lee continued. “We have heard of the need for this technology from the Indian health services and Alaskan health services, where decisions are made to airlift a child based on a visual inspection alone.”
More broadly, however, cautioned Dr. Westenberg, the total allowable error and the permissible limits of uncertainty in neonatal bilirubin quantification need to be defined – irrespective of the method used. “Accurate measurement of bilirubin is difficult as has been demonstrated in so-called external quality assessment (EQA) programs that exist for laboratory-based bilirubin methods,” she said. “EQA programs for POC bilirubin devices that include a reference method as a gold standard may contribute to adaptation of the device and improving POC test imprecision.”
This work was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Richards-Kortum and Dr. Lee have both been involved in the development of POC devices for assessing neonatal bilirubin levels.
Despite their convenience and low cost, , a systematic review and meta-analysis reports in JAMA Pediatrics. Lauren E.H. Westenberg, MD, of the division of neonatology at Erasmus MC Sophia Children’s Hospital in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues reported that POC meters tended to underestimate neonatal bilirubin levels, compared with conventional laboratory-based quantification.
Furthermore, pooled estimates from 10 studies found these devices to be too imprecise overall, with substantial outer-confidence bounds. On the plus side, Dr. Westenberg’s group said POC bilirubin testing was as much as 60 times faster than lab measurement, and used 40-60 times less blood. “Conventional laboratory-based bilirubin quantification usually requires up to 500 mcL, but sometimes even 1,500 mcL, while POC tests require up to 50 mcL, which means less stress for the baby,” Dr. Westenberg said in an interview. “Especially when infants are cared for at home, it usually takes a few hours between deciding to quantify bilirubin and obtaining the test result. Meanwhile, bilirubin levels may rise unnoticed.”
On the positive side, POC devices are useful where laboratories in low-resource areas may be remote, poorly equipped, and not always able to provide an accurate bilirubin level. “As a result, the diagnosis of jaundice relies mainly on visual inspection, which is known to be unreliable,” she said. POC devices, however, need near-perfect conditions for optimal use, and results can be affected by humidity, preanalytic conditions such as test strip saturation, and hematocrit.
Yet results from these devices have recently proven to have acceptable accuracy, resulting, for example, in the same clinical decisions as the reference standard in 90.7% of times according to a 2022 study in a hospital in Malawi.
Nevertheless, the authors concluded that the devices’ imprecision limits their widespread use in neonatal jaundice management, especially when accurate lab-based bilirubin quantification is available. Results from these POC tests should be interpreted with caution, Dr. Westenberg said. In terms of clinical decision-making, POC devices entail a risk of missing neonates with jaundice who need phototherapy or, in the case of overestimation, of starting phototherapy too early.
The study
The meta-analysis included nine cross-sectional and one prospective cohort study representing 3,122 neonates in Europe, Africa, and East and Southeast Asia. Two tests with 30-minute turnaround times were evaluated in neonates 0-28 days old. The Bilistick device was evaluated in eight studies and the BiliSpec (now called BiliDX) in just two studies. Three of the studies had a high risk of bias.
A total of 3,122 measurements paired with lab quantification showed a pooled mean difference in total bilirubin levels for the POC devices of –14 micromol/L, with pooled 95% confidence bounds (CBs) of –106 to 78 micromol/L. For the Bilistick, the pooled mean difference was –17 micromol/L (95% CBs, –114 to 80 micromol/L). Of the two devices, the Bilistick was more likely to have a failed quantification against the reference standard.
Context for POC devices
Commenting on the meta-analysis but not involved in it, Rebecca Richards-Kortum, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at Rice University in Houston, noted that both devices were developed specifically to address needs in low-resource settings. “I don’t think the meta-analysis acknowledges this rationale sufficiently,” she said. “It feels like this paper is comparing apples to oranges and then criticizing the apples for not being oranges,” said Dr. Richards-Kortum, who helped develop the BiliSpec test.
Similarly, Anne S. Lee, MD, MPH, an associate professor of pediatrics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and not a participant in the meta-analysis, also stressed that POC devices are designed for scenarios where lab-based results are not widely available. “In a broad sense, the devices fill an important gap, both in low- and middle-income countries, as well as in the U.S. when laboratory capacity is not readily available,” said Dr. Lee. She was involved the development of the Bili-ruler icterometer, which proved to be diagnostically accurate in Bangladeshi newborns.
“Access to this technology is a critical way to address health disparities even in the U.S.,” Dr. Lee continued. “We have heard of the need for this technology from the Indian health services and Alaskan health services, where decisions are made to airlift a child based on a visual inspection alone.”
More broadly, however, cautioned Dr. Westenberg, the total allowable error and the permissible limits of uncertainty in neonatal bilirubin quantification need to be defined – irrespective of the method used. “Accurate measurement of bilirubin is difficult as has been demonstrated in so-called external quality assessment (EQA) programs that exist for laboratory-based bilirubin methods,” she said. “EQA programs for POC bilirubin devices that include a reference method as a gold standard may contribute to adaptation of the device and improving POC test imprecision.”
This work was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Richards-Kortum and Dr. Lee have both been involved in the development of POC devices for assessing neonatal bilirubin levels.
JAMA PEDIATRICS
A 9-year-old male presents with multiple thick scaly plaques on scalp, ears, and trunk
Given the characteristic clinical presentation, the most likely diagnosis is psoriasis.
Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated disease that is characterized by well-demarcated thick scaly plaques on face, scalp, and intertriginous skin. Psoriasis is more common in adults than children, but the incidence of psoriasis in children has increased over time.1 Clinical presentation of psoriasis includes erythematous hyperkeratotic plaques, usually sharply demarcated. Pediatric patients may have multiple small papules and plaques less than 1 cm in size – “drop-size” – known as guttate lesions. Scalp and facial involvement are common in children. Chronic, inflamed plaques with coarse scale can involve ears, elbows, knees, and umbilicus, and nail changes can include pits, ridges, hyperkeratosis, and onycholysis or “oil spots.” While the diagnosis is clinical, biopsy can sometimes be useful to distinguish psoriasis from other papulosquamous conditions. Psoriasis in children is associated with obesity, higher rates of cardiovascular disease over a lifetime, as well as arthritis and mental health disorders.2
What’s the differential diagnosis?
The differential diagnosis for psoriasis can include papulosquamous diseases such as nummular eczema, pityriasis rosea, and pityriasis rubra pilaris. Tinea corporis may also be considered.
Nummular eczema, also known as “discoid eczema” is characterized by multiple pruritic, coin-shaped, eczematous lesions that may be actively oozing. The term “nummular” is derived from the Latin for “coin,” as lesions are distinct and annular. It is commonly associated with atopic dermatitis, and may be seen with contact dermatitis as well. Oozing, lichenification, hyperpigmentation and limited extent of skin coverage can help distinguish nummular dermatitis from psoriasis.
Pityriasis rosea is a common self-limited disease that is characterized by the appearance of acute, oval, papulosquamous patches on the trunk and proximal areas of the extremities. It usually begins with a characteristic “herald” patch, a single round or oval, sharply demarcated, pink lesion on the chest, neck, or back. Pityriasis rosea and guttate psoriasis may show similar clinical findings but the latter lacks a herald patch and is often preceded by streptococcal throat infection.
Pityriasis rubra pilaris is a rarer inflammatory disease characterized by follicular, hyperkeratotic papules, thick orange waxy palms (palmoplantar keratoderma), and erythroderma. It can also cause hair loss, nail changes, and itching. The rash shows areas with no involvement, “islands of sparing,” which is a signature characteristic of pityriasis rubra pilaris. Skin biopsies are an important diagnostic tool for pityriasis rubra pilaris. In the case of circumscribed pityriasis rubra pilaris, it may look similar to psoriasis, but it can be differentiated in that it is often accompanied by characteristic follicular papules and involvement of the palms, which are more waxy and orange in color.
When evaluating annular scaly patches, it is always important to consider tinea corporis. Tinea corporis will commonly have an annular border of scale with relative clearing in the center of lesions. In addition, when topical corticosteroids are used for prolonged periods, skin fungal infections can develop into “tinea incognito,” with paradoxical worsening since the immune response is suppressed and the fungal infection worsens.
Our patient had been previously treated with topical corticosteroids (medium to high strength) and topical calcineurin inhibitors without significant improvement. Other topical therapies for psoriasis include vitamin analogues, tazarotene, and newer therapies such as topical roflumilast (a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor approved for psoriasis in children over 12 years of age).3,4 In addition, as the indications for biological agents have been expanded, there are various options for treating psoriasis in children and adolescents when more active treatment is needed. Systemic therapies for more severe disease include traditional systemic immunosuppressives (for example, methotrexate, cyclosporine) and biologic agents. The four biologic agents currently approved for children are etanercept, ustekinumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab. Our patient was treated with ustekinumab, which is an injectable biologic agent that blocks interleukin-12/23, with good response to date.
Dr. Al-Nabti is a clinical fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology; Dr. Choi is a visiting research physician in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology; and Dr. Eichenfield is vice-chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, all at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. They have no relevant disclosures.
References
1. Tollefson MM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62(6):979-87.
2. Menter A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82(1):161-201.
3. Mark G et al. JAMA. 2022;328(11):1073-84.
4. Eichenfield LF et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2018;35(2):170-81.
Given the characteristic clinical presentation, the most likely diagnosis is psoriasis.
Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated disease that is characterized by well-demarcated thick scaly plaques on face, scalp, and intertriginous skin. Psoriasis is more common in adults than children, but the incidence of psoriasis in children has increased over time.1 Clinical presentation of psoriasis includes erythematous hyperkeratotic plaques, usually sharply demarcated. Pediatric patients may have multiple small papules and plaques less than 1 cm in size – “drop-size” – known as guttate lesions. Scalp and facial involvement are common in children. Chronic, inflamed plaques with coarse scale can involve ears, elbows, knees, and umbilicus, and nail changes can include pits, ridges, hyperkeratosis, and onycholysis or “oil spots.” While the diagnosis is clinical, biopsy can sometimes be useful to distinguish psoriasis from other papulosquamous conditions. Psoriasis in children is associated with obesity, higher rates of cardiovascular disease over a lifetime, as well as arthritis and mental health disorders.2
What’s the differential diagnosis?
The differential diagnosis for psoriasis can include papulosquamous diseases such as nummular eczema, pityriasis rosea, and pityriasis rubra pilaris. Tinea corporis may also be considered.
Nummular eczema, also known as “discoid eczema” is characterized by multiple pruritic, coin-shaped, eczematous lesions that may be actively oozing. The term “nummular” is derived from the Latin for “coin,” as lesions are distinct and annular. It is commonly associated with atopic dermatitis, and may be seen with contact dermatitis as well. Oozing, lichenification, hyperpigmentation and limited extent of skin coverage can help distinguish nummular dermatitis from psoriasis.
Pityriasis rosea is a common self-limited disease that is characterized by the appearance of acute, oval, papulosquamous patches on the trunk and proximal areas of the extremities. It usually begins with a characteristic “herald” patch, a single round or oval, sharply demarcated, pink lesion on the chest, neck, or back. Pityriasis rosea and guttate psoriasis may show similar clinical findings but the latter lacks a herald patch and is often preceded by streptococcal throat infection.
Pityriasis rubra pilaris is a rarer inflammatory disease characterized by follicular, hyperkeratotic papules, thick orange waxy palms (palmoplantar keratoderma), and erythroderma. It can also cause hair loss, nail changes, and itching. The rash shows areas with no involvement, “islands of sparing,” which is a signature characteristic of pityriasis rubra pilaris. Skin biopsies are an important diagnostic tool for pityriasis rubra pilaris. In the case of circumscribed pityriasis rubra pilaris, it may look similar to psoriasis, but it can be differentiated in that it is often accompanied by characteristic follicular papules and involvement of the palms, which are more waxy and orange in color.
When evaluating annular scaly patches, it is always important to consider tinea corporis. Tinea corporis will commonly have an annular border of scale with relative clearing in the center of lesions. In addition, when topical corticosteroids are used for prolonged periods, skin fungal infections can develop into “tinea incognito,” with paradoxical worsening since the immune response is suppressed and the fungal infection worsens.
Our patient had been previously treated with topical corticosteroids (medium to high strength) and topical calcineurin inhibitors without significant improvement. Other topical therapies for psoriasis include vitamin analogues, tazarotene, and newer therapies such as topical roflumilast (a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor approved for psoriasis in children over 12 years of age).3,4 In addition, as the indications for biological agents have been expanded, there are various options for treating psoriasis in children and adolescents when more active treatment is needed. Systemic therapies for more severe disease include traditional systemic immunosuppressives (for example, methotrexate, cyclosporine) and biologic agents. The four biologic agents currently approved for children are etanercept, ustekinumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab. Our patient was treated with ustekinumab, which is an injectable biologic agent that blocks interleukin-12/23, with good response to date.
Dr. Al-Nabti is a clinical fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology; Dr. Choi is a visiting research physician in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology; and Dr. Eichenfield is vice-chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, all at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. They have no relevant disclosures.
References
1. Tollefson MM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62(6):979-87.
2. Menter A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82(1):161-201.
3. Mark G et al. JAMA. 2022;328(11):1073-84.
4. Eichenfield LF et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2018;35(2):170-81.
Given the characteristic clinical presentation, the most likely diagnosis is psoriasis.
Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated disease that is characterized by well-demarcated thick scaly plaques on face, scalp, and intertriginous skin. Psoriasis is more common in adults than children, but the incidence of psoriasis in children has increased over time.1 Clinical presentation of psoriasis includes erythematous hyperkeratotic plaques, usually sharply demarcated. Pediatric patients may have multiple small papules and plaques less than 1 cm in size – “drop-size” – known as guttate lesions. Scalp and facial involvement are common in children. Chronic, inflamed plaques with coarse scale can involve ears, elbows, knees, and umbilicus, and nail changes can include pits, ridges, hyperkeratosis, and onycholysis or “oil spots.” While the diagnosis is clinical, biopsy can sometimes be useful to distinguish psoriasis from other papulosquamous conditions. Psoriasis in children is associated with obesity, higher rates of cardiovascular disease over a lifetime, as well as arthritis and mental health disorders.2
What’s the differential diagnosis?
The differential diagnosis for psoriasis can include papulosquamous diseases such as nummular eczema, pityriasis rosea, and pityriasis rubra pilaris. Tinea corporis may also be considered.
Nummular eczema, also known as “discoid eczema” is characterized by multiple pruritic, coin-shaped, eczematous lesions that may be actively oozing. The term “nummular” is derived from the Latin for “coin,” as lesions are distinct and annular. It is commonly associated with atopic dermatitis, and may be seen with contact dermatitis as well. Oozing, lichenification, hyperpigmentation and limited extent of skin coverage can help distinguish nummular dermatitis from psoriasis.
Pityriasis rosea is a common self-limited disease that is characterized by the appearance of acute, oval, papulosquamous patches on the trunk and proximal areas of the extremities. It usually begins with a characteristic “herald” patch, a single round or oval, sharply demarcated, pink lesion on the chest, neck, or back. Pityriasis rosea and guttate psoriasis may show similar clinical findings but the latter lacks a herald patch and is often preceded by streptococcal throat infection.
Pityriasis rubra pilaris is a rarer inflammatory disease characterized by follicular, hyperkeratotic papules, thick orange waxy palms (palmoplantar keratoderma), and erythroderma. It can also cause hair loss, nail changes, and itching. The rash shows areas with no involvement, “islands of sparing,” which is a signature characteristic of pityriasis rubra pilaris. Skin biopsies are an important diagnostic tool for pityriasis rubra pilaris. In the case of circumscribed pityriasis rubra pilaris, it may look similar to psoriasis, but it can be differentiated in that it is often accompanied by characteristic follicular papules and involvement of the palms, which are more waxy and orange in color.
When evaluating annular scaly patches, it is always important to consider tinea corporis. Tinea corporis will commonly have an annular border of scale with relative clearing in the center of lesions. In addition, when topical corticosteroids are used for prolonged periods, skin fungal infections can develop into “tinea incognito,” with paradoxical worsening since the immune response is suppressed and the fungal infection worsens.
Our patient had been previously treated with topical corticosteroids (medium to high strength) and topical calcineurin inhibitors without significant improvement. Other topical therapies for psoriasis include vitamin analogues, tazarotene, and newer therapies such as topical roflumilast (a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor approved for psoriasis in children over 12 years of age).3,4 In addition, as the indications for biological agents have been expanded, there are various options for treating psoriasis in children and adolescents when more active treatment is needed. Systemic therapies for more severe disease include traditional systemic immunosuppressives (for example, methotrexate, cyclosporine) and biologic agents. The four biologic agents currently approved for children are etanercept, ustekinumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab. Our patient was treated with ustekinumab, which is an injectable biologic agent that blocks interleukin-12/23, with good response to date.
Dr. Al-Nabti is a clinical fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology; Dr. Choi is a visiting research physician in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology; and Dr. Eichenfield is vice-chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, all at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. They have no relevant disclosures.
References
1. Tollefson MM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62(6):979-87.
2. Menter A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82(1):161-201.
3. Mark G et al. JAMA. 2022;328(11):1073-84.
4. Eichenfield LF et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2018;35(2):170-81.
A 9-year-old male is seen in the clinic with a 1-year history of multiple thick scaly plaques on scalp, ears, and trunk. He has been treated with hydrocortisone 1% ointment with no change in the lesions. He had upper respiratory tract symptoms 3 weeks prior to the visit.
Examination reveals erythematous, well-demarcated plaques of the anterior scalp with thick overlying micaceous scale with some extension onto the forehead and temples. Additionally, erythematous scaly patches on the ear, axilla, and umbilicus were noted. There was no palmar or plantar involvement. He denied joint swelling, stiffness, or pain in the morning.
Clinician violence: Virtual reality to the rescue?
This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.
Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.
First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?
Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.
We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.
Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.
We are immersing learners into an actual hospital room to our specifications, very similar to exactly where we practice each and every day, and taking the learners through different situations that we designed with various levels of escalation and aggression, and asking the learner to manage that situation as best as they possibly can using the competencies and proficiencies that we taught them.
Dr. Glatter: Haptic feedback is an important part of the program and also the approach and technique that you’re using. Can you describe what haptic feedback means and what people actually feel?
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. One of the most unfortunate things in my professional career is physical abuse suffered by people like me and you and our colleagues, nursing personnel, technicians, and others, resulting in injury.
We wanted to provide the most realistic experience that we could design. Haptics engage digital senses other than your auditory and your visuals. They really engage your tactile senses. These haptic vests and gloves and technology allow us to provide a third set of sensory stimuli for the learner.
At one of the modules, we have an actual physical assault that takes place, and the learner is actually able to feel in their body the strikes – of course, not painful – but just bringing in those senses and that stimulus, really leaving the learner with an experience that’s going to be long-lasting.
Dr. Glatter: Feeling that stimulus certainly affects your vital signs. Do you monitor a provider’s vital signs, such as their blood pressure and heart rate, as the situation and the threat escalate? That could potentially trigger some issues in people with prior PTSD or people with other mental health issues. Has that ever been considered in the design of your program?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. The beautiful thing about haptics is that they can be tailored to our specific parameters. The sensory stimulus that’s provided is actually very mild. It feels more like a tap than an actual strike. It just reminds us that when we’re having or experiencing an actual physical attack, we’re really engaging the senses.
We have an emergency physician or an EMT-paramedic on site at all times during the training so that we can monitor our subjects and make sure that they’re comfortable and healthy.
Dr. Glatter: Do they have actual sensors attached to their bodies that are part of your program or distinct in terms of monitoring their vital signs?
Dr. Salazar: It’s completely different. We have two different systems that we are planning on utilizing. Frankly, in the final version of this virtual reality module, we may not even involve the haptics. We’re going to study it and see how our learners behave and how much information they’re able to acquire and retain.
It may be very possible that just the visuals – the auditory and the immersion taking place within the hospital room – may be enough. It’s very possible that, in the next final version of this, we may find that haptics bring in quite a bit of value, and we may incorporate that. If that is the case, then we will, of course, acquire different technology to monitor the patient’s vital signs.
Dr. Glatter: Clearly, when situations escalate in the department, everyone gets more concerned about the patient, but providers are part of this equation, as you allude to.
In 2022, there was a poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians that stated that 85% of emergency physicians reported an increase in violent activity in their ERs in the past 5 years. Nearly two-thirds of nearly 3,000 emergency physicians surveyed reported being assaulted in the past year. This is an important module that we integrate into training providers in terms of these types of tense situations that can result not only in mental anguish but also in physical injury.
Dr. Salazar: One hundred percent. I frankly got tired of seeing my friends and my colleagues suffer both the physical and mental effects of verbal and physical abuse, and I wanted to design a project that was very patient centric while allowing our personnel to really manage these situations a little bit better.
Frankly, we don’t receive great training in this space, and I wanted to rewrite that narrative and make things better for our clinicians out there while remaining patient centric. I wanted to do something about it, and hopefully this dream will become a reality.
Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. There are other data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics stating that health care workers are five times more likely than employees in any other area of work to experience workplace violence. This could, again, range from verbal to physical violence. This is a very important module that you’re developing.
Are there any thoughts to extend this to active-shooter scenarios or any other high-stakes scenarios that you can imagine in the department?
Dr. Salazar: We’re actually working with the same developer that’s helping us with this VR module in developing a mass-casualty incident module so that we can get better training in responding to these very unfortunate high-stakes situations.
Dr. Glatter: In terms of using the module remotely, certainly not requiring resources or having to be in a physical place, can providers in your plan be able to take such a headset home and practice on their own in the sense of being able to deal with a situation? Would this be more reserved for in-department use?
Dr. Salazar: That’s a phenomenal question. I wanted to create the most flexible module that I possibly could. Ideally, a dream scenario is leveraging a simulation center at an academic center and not just do the VR module but also have a brief didactics incorporating a small slide set, some feedback, and some standardized patients. I wanted it to be flexible enough so that folks here in my state, a different state, or even internationally could take advantage of this technology and do it from the comfort of their home.
As you mentioned, this is going to strike some people. It’s going to hit them heavier than others in terms of prior experience as PTSD. For some people, it may be more comfortable to do it in the comfort of their homes. I wanted to create something very flexible and dynamic.
Dr. Glatter: I think that’s ideal. Just one other point. Can you discuss the different levels of competencies involved in this module and how that would be attained?
Dr. Salazar: It’s all evidence based, so we borrowed from literature and the specialties of emergency medicine. We collaborated with psychiatrists within our medical center. We looked at all available literature and methods, proficiencies, competencies, and best practices, and we took all of them together to form something that we think is organized and concise.
We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.
This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.
Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.
Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.
Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.
Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?
Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.
Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.
Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?
Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.
Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.
Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.
Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.
Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.
Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.
First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?
Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.
We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.
Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.
We are immersing learners into an actual hospital room to our specifications, very similar to exactly where we practice each and every day, and taking the learners through different situations that we designed with various levels of escalation and aggression, and asking the learner to manage that situation as best as they possibly can using the competencies and proficiencies that we taught them.
Dr. Glatter: Haptic feedback is an important part of the program and also the approach and technique that you’re using. Can you describe what haptic feedback means and what people actually feel?
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. One of the most unfortunate things in my professional career is physical abuse suffered by people like me and you and our colleagues, nursing personnel, technicians, and others, resulting in injury.
We wanted to provide the most realistic experience that we could design. Haptics engage digital senses other than your auditory and your visuals. They really engage your tactile senses. These haptic vests and gloves and technology allow us to provide a third set of sensory stimuli for the learner.
At one of the modules, we have an actual physical assault that takes place, and the learner is actually able to feel in their body the strikes – of course, not painful – but just bringing in those senses and that stimulus, really leaving the learner with an experience that’s going to be long-lasting.
Dr. Glatter: Feeling that stimulus certainly affects your vital signs. Do you monitor a provider’s vital signs, such as their blood pressure and heart rate, as the situation and the threat escalate? That could potentially trigger some issues in people with prior PTSD or people with other mental health issues. Has that ever been considered in the design of your program?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. The beautiful thing about haptics is that they can be tailored to our specific parameters. The sensory stimulus that’s provided is actually very mild. It feels more like a tap than an actual strike. It just reminds us that when we’re having or experiencing an actual physical attack, we’re really engaging the senses.
We have an emergency physician or an EMT-paramedic on site at all times during the training so that we can monitor our subjects and make sure that they’re comfortable and healthy.
Dr. Glatter: Do they have actual sensors attached to their bodies that are part of your program or distinct in terms of monitoring their vital signs?
Dr. Salazar: It’s completely different. We have two different systems that we are planning on utilizing. Frankly, in the final version of this virtual reality module, we may not even involve the haptics. We’re going to study it and see how our learners behave and how much information they’re able to acquire and retain.
It may be very possible that just the visuals – the auditory and the immersion taking place within the hospital room – may be enough. It’s very possible that, in the next final version of this, we may find that haptics bring in quite a bit of value, and we may incorporate that. If that is the case, then we will, of course, acquire different technology to monitor the patient’s vital signs.
Dr. Glatter: Clearly, when situations escalate in the department, everyone gets more concerned about the patient, but providers are part of this equation, as you allude to.
In 2022, there was a poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians that stated that 85% of emergency physicians reported an increase in violent activity in their ERs in the past 5 years. Nearly two-thirds of nearly 3,000 emergency physicians surveyed reported being assaulted in the past year. This is an important module that we integrate into training providers in terms of these types of tense situations that can result not only in mental anguish but also in physical injury.
Dr. Salazar: One hundred percent. I frankly got tired of seeing my friends and my colleagues suffer both the physical and mental effects of verbal and physical abuse, and I wanted to design a project that was very patient centric while allowing our personnel to really manage these situations a little bit better.
Frankly, we don’t receive great training in this space, and I wanted to rewrite that narrative and make things better for our clinicians out there while remaining patient centric. I wanted to do something about it, and hopefully this dream will become a reality.
Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. There are other data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics stating that health care workers are five times more likely than employees in any other area of work to experience workplace violence. This could, again, range from verbal to physical violence. This is a very important module that you’re developing.
Are there any thoughts to extend this to active-shooter scenarios or any other high-stakes scenarios that you can imagine in the department?
Dr. Salazar: We’re actually working with the same developer that’s helping us with this VR module in developing a mass-casualty incident module so that we can get better training in responding to these very unfortunate high-stakes situations.
Dr. Glatter: In terms of using the module remotely, certainly not requiring resources or having to be in a physical place, can providers in your plan be able to take such a headset home and practice on their own in the sense of being able to deal with a situation? Would this be more reserved for in-department use?
Dr. Salazar: That’s a phenomenal question. I wanted to create the most flexible module that I possibly could. Ideally, a dream scenario is leveraging a simulation center at an academic center and not just do the VR module but also have a brief didactics incorporating a small slide set, some feedback, and some standardized patients. I wanted it to be flexible enough so that folks here in my state, a different state, or even internationally could take advantage of this technology and do it from the comfort of their home.
As you mentioned, this is going to strike some people. It’s going to hit them heavier than others in terms of prior experience as PTSD. For some people, it may be more comfortable to do it in the comfort of their homes. I wanted to create something very flexible and dynamic.
Dr. Glatter: I think that’s ideal. Just one other point. Can you discuss the different levels of competencies involved in this module and how that would be attained?
Dr. Salazar: It’s all evidence based, so we borrowed from literature and the specialties of emergency medicine. We collaborated with psychiatrists within our medical center. We looked at all available literature and methods, proficiencies, competencies, and best practices, and we took all of them together to form something that we think is organized and concise.
We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.
This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.
Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.
Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.
Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.
Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?
Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.
Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.
Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?
Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.
Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.
Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.
Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.
Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.
Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.
First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?
Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.
We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.
Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.
We are immersing learners into an actual hospital room to our specifications, very similar to exactly where we practice each and every day, and taking the learners through different situations that we designed with various levels of escalation and aggression, and asking the learner to manage that situation as best as they possibly can using the competencies and proficiencies that we taught them.
Dr. Glatter: Haptic feedback is an important part of the program and also the approach and technique that you’re using. Can you describe what haptic feedback means and what people actually feel?
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. One of the most unfortunate things in my professional career is physical abuse suffered by people like me and you and our colleagues, nursing personnel, technicians, and others, resulting in injury.
We wanted to provide the most realistic experience that we could design. Haptics engage digital senses other than your auditory and your visuals. They really engage your tactile senses. These haptic vests and gloves and technology allow us to provide a third set of sensory stimuli for the learner.
At one of the modules, we have an actual physical assault that takes place, and the learner is actually able to feel in their body the strikes – of course, not painful – but just bringing in those senses and that stimulus, really leaving the learner with an experience that’s going to be long-lasting.
Dr. Glatter: Feeling that stimulus certainly affects your vital signs. Do you monitor a provider’s vital signs, such as their blood pressure and heart rate, as the situation and the threat escalate? That could potentially trigger some issues in people with prior PTSD or people with other mental health issues. Has that ever been considered in the design of your program?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. The beautiful thing about haptics is that they can be tailored to our specific parameters. The sensory stimulus that’s provided is actually very mild. It feels more like a tap than an actual strike. It just reminds us that when we’re having or experiencing an actual physical attack, we’re really engaging the senses.
We have an emergency physician or an EMT-paramedic on site at all times during the training so that we can monitor our subjects and make sure that they’re comfortable and healthy.
Dr. Glatter: Do they have actual sensors attached to their bodies that are part of your program or distinct in terms of monitoring their vital signs?
Dr. Salazar: It’s completely different. We have two different systems that we are planning on utilizing. Frankly, in the final version of this virtual reality module, we may not even involve the haptics. We’re going to study it and see how our learners behave and how much information they’re able to acquire and retain.
It may be very possible that just the visuals – the auditory and the immersion taking place within the hospital room – may be enough. It’s very possible that, in the next final version of this, we may find that haptics bring in quite a bit of value, and we may incorporate that. If that is the case, then we will, of course, acquire different technology to monitor the patient’s vital signs.
Dr. Glatter: Clearly, when situations escalate in the department, everyone gets more concerned about the patient, but providers are part of this equation, as you allude to.
In 2022, there was a poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians that stated that 85% of emergency physicians reported an increase in violent activity in their ERs in the past 5 years. Nearly two-thirds of nearly 3,000 emergency physicians surveyed reported being assaulted in the past year. This is an important module that we integrate into training providers in terms of these types of tense situations that can result not only in mental anguish but also in physical injury.
Dr. Salazar: One hundred percent. I frankly got tired of seeing my friends and my colleagues suffer both the physical and mental effects of verbal and physical abuse, and I wanted to design a project that was very patient centric while allowing our personnel to really manage these situations a little bit better.
Frankly, we don’t receive great training in this space, and I wanted to rewrite that narrative and make things better for our clinicians out there while remaining patient centric. I wanted to do something about it, and hopefully this dream will become a reality.
Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. There are other data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics stating that health care workers are five times more likely than employees in any other area of work to experience workplace violence. This could, again, range from verbal to physical violence. This is a very important module that you’re developing.
Are there any thoughts to extend this to active-shooter scenarios or any other high-stakes scenarios that you can imagine in the department?
Dr. Salazar: We’re actually working with the same developer that’s helping us with this VR module in developing a mass-casualty incident module so that we can get better training in responding to these very unfortunate high-stakes situations.
Dr. Glatter: In terms of using the module remotely, certainly not requiring resources or having to be in a physical place, can providers in your plan be able to take such a headset home and practice on their own in the sense of being able to deal with a situation? Would this be more reserved for in-department use?
Dr. Salazar: That’s a phenomenal question. I wanted to create the most flexible module that I possibly could. Ideally, a dream scenario is leveraging a simulation center at an academic center and not just do the VR module but also have a brief didactics incorporating a small slide set, some feedback, and some standardized patients. I wanted it to be flexible enough so that folks here in my state, a different state, or even internationally could take advantage of this technology and do it from the comfort of their home.
As you mentioned, this is going to strike some people. It’s going to hit them heavier than others in terms of prior experience as PTSD. For some people, it may be more comfortable to do it in the comfort of their homes. I wanted to create something very flexible and dynamic.
Dr. Glatter: I think that’s ideal. Just one other point. Can you discuss the different levels of competencies involved in this module and how that would be attained?
Dr. Salazar: It’s all evidence based, so we borrowed from literature and the specialties of emergency medicine. We collaborated with psychiatrists within our medical center. We looked at all available literature and methods, proficiencies, competencies, and best practices, and we took all of them together to form something that we think is organized and concise.
We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.
This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.
Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.
Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.
Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.
Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?
Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.
Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.
Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?
Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.
Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.
Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.
Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.
Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Once-daily stimulant for ADHD safe, effective at 1 year
A once-daily oral stimulant medication for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in individuals aged 6 years or older is safe and effective after 1 year of treatment, new research shows.
Results from a phase 3, multicenter dose optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.
“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.
The study was published online in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.
Safety at 1 year
The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH), co-formulated with immediate-release d-MPH.
SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.
As reported by this news organization, Azstarys was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.
For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial as well.
After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.
After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study due to a TEAE during the treatment phase.
Investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.
There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.
The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.
Efficacy at 1 year
ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.
At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).
The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.
Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).
CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.
These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.
“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”
‘Reassuring data’
Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.
“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.
“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.
Overall, the safety data reported here are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.
However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.
“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”
The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos. Full disclosures are reported in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A once-daily oral stimulant medication for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in individuals aged 6 years or older is safe and effective after 1 year of treatment, new research shows.
Results from a phase 3, multicenter dose optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.
“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.
The study was published online in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.
Safety at 1 year
The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH), co-formulated with immediate-release d-MPH.
SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.
As reported by this news organization, Azstarys was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.
For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial as well.
After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.
After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study due to a TEAE during the treatment phase.
Investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.
There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.
The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.
Efficacy at 1 year
ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.
At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).
The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.
Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).
CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.
These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.
“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”
‘Reassuring data’
Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.
“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.
“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.
Overall, the safety data reported here are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.
However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.
“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”
The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos. Full disclosures are reported in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A once-daily oral stimulant medication for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in individuals aged 6 years or older is safe and effective after 1 year of treatment, new research shows.
Results from a phase 3, multicenter dose optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.
“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.
The study was published online in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.
Safety at 1 year
The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH), co-formulated with immediate-release d-MPH.
SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.
As reported by this news organization, Azstarys was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.
For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial as well.
After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.
After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study due to a TEAE during the treatment phase.
Investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.
There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.
The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.
Efficacy at 1 year
ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.
At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).
The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.
Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).
CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.
These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.
“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”
‘Reassuring data’
Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.
“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.
“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.
Overall, the safety data reported here are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.
However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.
“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”
The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos. Full disclosures are reported in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Buprenorphine proves effective for fentanyl users in the ED
based on data from nearly 900 individuals.
California EDs include a facilitation program known as CA Bridge for the treatment of opioid use disorder. Guidelines for CA Bridge call for high-dose buprenorphine to treat patients in drug withdrawal, with doses starting at 8-16 mg, Hannah Snyder, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote.
“Buprenorphine has been repeatedly shown to save lives and prevent overdoses,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We know that emergency department–initiated buprenorphine is an essential tool for increasing access. In the era of fentanyl, both patients and providers have expressed concerns that buprenorphine may not work as well as it did when patients were more likely to be using heroin or opioid pills.
“This retrospective cohort study provides additional information about emergency department buprenorphine as fentanyl becomes increasingly prevalent.”
In a research letter published in JAMA Network Open, the investigators reviewed data from the electronic health records of 896 patients who presented with opioid use disorder (OUD) at 16 CA Bridge EDs between Jan. 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020. All patients with OUD were included regardless of chief concern, current treatment, treatment desires, or withdrawal. A total of 87 individuals reported fentanyl use; if no fentanyl use was reported, the patient was classified as not using fentanyl. The median age of the patients was 35 years, two thirds were male, approximately 46% were White and non-Hispanic, and 30% had unstable housing.
The primary outcome was follow-up engagement at 7-14 days and 25-37 days.
A total of 492 patients received buprenorphine, including 44 fentanyl users, and 439 initiated high doses of 8-32 mg. At a 30-day follow-up, eight patients had precipitated withdrawal, including two cases in fentanyl users; none of these cases required hospital admission.
The follow-up engagement was similar for both groups, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.60 for administered buprenorphine at the initial ED encounter, 1.09 for 7-day follow-up, and 1.33 for 30-day follow-up.
The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of clinical documentation, which likely resulted in underreporting of fentanyl use and follow-up, the researchers noted. However, the results supported the effectiveness of buprenorphine for ED patients in withdrawal with a history of fentanyl exposure.
“We were pleased to see that precipitated withdrawal was relatively uncommon in this study, and that patients who did and did not use fentanyl followed up at similar rates,” said Dr. Snyder. “This aligns with our clinical experience and prior research showing that emergency department buprenorphine starts continue to be an essential tool.”
The message for clinicians: “If a patient presents to the emergency department in objective opioid withdrawal and desires buprenorphine, they should be offered treatment in that moment,” Dr. Snyder said. “Treatment protocols used by hospitals in this study are available online. Emergency departments can offer compassionate and evidence-based treatment initiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.”
More data needed on dosing strategies
“We need additional research to determine best practices for patients who use fentanyl and want to start buprenorphine, but are not yet in withdrawal,” Dr. Snyder said. “Doses of buprenorphine like those in this study are only appropriate for patients who are in withdrawal with objective signs, so some patients may struggle to wait long enough after their last use to go into sufficient withdrawal.”
Precipitated withdrawal does occur in some cases, said Dr. Snyder. “If it does, the emergency department is a very good place to manage it. We need additional research to determine best practices in management to make patients as comfortable as possible, including additional high-dose buprenorphine as well as additional adjunctive agents.”
Findings support buprenorphine
“The classic approach to buprenorphine initiation, which emerged from psychiatry outpatient office visits, is to start with very small doses of buprenorphine [2-4 mg] and titrate up slowly,” Reuben J. Strayer, MD, said in an interview.
“This dose range turns out to be the ‘sour spot’ most likely to cause the most important complication around buprenorphine initiation–precipitated withdrawal,” said Dr. Strayer, the director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York.
“One of the current focus areas of OUD treatment research is determining how to initiate buprenorphine without entailing a period of spontaneous withdrawal and without causing precipitated withdrawal,” Strayer explained. “The two primary strategies are low-dose buprenorphine initiation [LDBI, less than 2 mg, sometimes called microdosing] and high-dose [HDBI, ≥ 16 mg] buprenorphine initiation. HDBI is attractive because the primary treatment of buprenorphine-precipitated withdrawal is more buprenorphine.
“Additionally, using a high dose up front immediately transitions the patient to therapeutic blood levels, which protects the patient from withdrawal, cravings, and overdose from dangerous opioids (heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone).”
However, “the contamination and now replacement of heroin with fentanyl in the street drug supply has challenged buprenorphine initiation, because fentanyl, when used chronically, accumulates in the body and leaks into the bloodstream slowly over time, preventing the opioid washout that is required to eliminate the risk of precipitated withdrawal when buprenorphine is administered,” said Dr. Strayer.
The current study demonstrates that patients who are initiated with a first dose of 8-16 mg buprenorphine are unlikely to experience precipitated withdrawal and are successfully transitioned to buprenorphine maintenance and clinic follow-up, Dr. Snyder said, but he was surprised by the low rate of precipitated withdrawal in the current study, “which is discordant with what is being anecdotally reported across the country.”
However, the take-home message for clinicians is the support for the initiation of buprenorphine in emergency department settings at a starting dose of 8-16 mg, regardless of reported fentanyl use, he said. “Given the huge impact buprenorphine therapy has on OUD-related mortality, clinicians should make every effort to initiate buprenorphine for OUD patients at every opportunity, and precipitated withdrawal is very unlikely in appropriately selected patients.
“Many clinicians remain reluctant to initiate buprenorphine in ED settings for unfamiliarity with the drug, fear of precipitated withdrawal, or concerns around the certainty of outpatient follow-up,” Dr. Snyder said. “Education, encouragement, systems programming, such as including decision support within the electronic health record, and role-modeling from local champions will promote wider adoption of this lifesaving practice.”
Looking ahead, “more research, including prospective research, is needed to refine best practices around buprenorphine administration,” said Dr. Snyder. Questions to address include which patients are most at risk for precipitated withdrawal and whether there are alternatives to standard initiation dosing that are sufficiently unlikely to cause precipitated withdrawal. “Possibly effective alternatives include buprenorphine initiation by administration of long-acting injectable depot buprenorphine, which accumulates slowly, potentially avoiding precipitated withdrawal, as well as a slow intravenous buprenorphine infusion such as 9 mg given over 12 hours.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Snyder disclosed grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the California Department of Health Care Services during the study. Dr. Strayer reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
based on data from nearly 900 individuals.
California EDs include a facilitation program known as CA Bridge for the treatment of opioid use disorder. Guidelines for CA Bridge call for high-dose buprenorphine to treat patients in drug withdrawal, with doses starting at 8-16 mg, Hannah Snyder, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote.
“Buprenorphine has been repeatedly shown to save lives and prevent overdoses,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We know that emergency department–initiated buprenorphine is an essential tool for increasing access. In the era of fentanyl, both patients and providers have expressed concerns that buprenorphine may not work as well as it did when patients were more likely to be using heroin or opioid pills.
“This retrospective cohort study provides additional information about emergency department buprenorphine as fentanyl becomes increasingly prevalent.”
In a research letter published in JAMA Network Open, the investigators reviewed data from the electronic health records of 896 patients who presented with opioid use disorder (OUD) at 16 CA Bridge EDs between Jan. 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020. All patients with OUD were included regardless of chief concern, current treatment, treatment desires, or withdrawal. A total of 87 individuals reported fentanyl use; if no fentanyl use was reported, the patient was classified as not using fentanyl. The median age of the patients was 35 years, two thirds were male, approximately 46% were White and non-Hispanic, and 30% had unstable housing.
The primary outcome was follow-up engagement at 7-14 days and 25-37 days.
A total of 492 patients received buprenorphine, including 44 fentanyl users, and 439 initiated high doses of 8-32 mg. At a 30-day follow-up, eight patients had precipitated withdrawal, including two cases in fentanyl users; none of these cases required hospital admission.
The follow-up engagement was similar for both groups, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.60 for administered buprenorphine at the initial ED encounter, 1.09 for 7-day follow-up, and 1.33 for 30-day follow-up.
The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of clinical documentation, which likely resulted in underreporting of fentanyl use and follow-up, the researchers noted. However, the results supported the effectiveness of buprenorphine for ED patients in withdrawal with a history of fentanyl exposure.
“We were pleased to see that precipitated withdrawal was relatively uncommon in this study, and that patients who did and did not use fentanyl followed up at similar rates,” said Dr. Snyder. “This aligns with our clinical experience and prior research showing that emergency department buprenorphine starts continue to be an essential tool.”
The message for clinicians: “If a patient presents to the emergency department in objective opioid withdrawal and desires buprenorphine, they should be offered treatment in that moment,” Dr. Snyder said. “Treatment protocols used by hospitals in this study are available online. Emergency departments can offer compassionate and evidence-based treatment initiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.”
More data needed on dosing strategies
“We need additional research to determine best practices for patients who use fentanyl and want to start buprenorphine, but are not yet in withdrawal,” Dr. Snyder said. “Doses of buprenorphine like those in this study are only appropriate for patients who are in withdrawal with objective signs, so some patients may struggle to wait long enough after their last use to go into sufficient withdrawal.”
Precipitated withdrawal does occur in some cases, said Dr. Snyder. “If it does, the emergency department is a very good place to manage it. We need additional research to determine best practices in management to make patients as comfortable as possible, including additional high-dose buprenorphine as well as additional adjunctive agents.”
Findings support buprenorphine
“The classic approach to buprenorphine initiation, which emerged from psychiatry outpatient office visits, is to start with very small doses of buprenorphine [2-4 mg] and titrate up slowly,” Reuben J. Strayer, MD, said in an interview.
“This dose range turns out to be the ‘sour spot’ most likely to cause the most important complication around buprenorphine initiation–precipitated withdrawal,” said Dr. Strayer, the director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York.
“One of the current focus areas of OUD treatment research is determining how to initiate buprenorphine without entailing a period of spontaneous withdrawal and without causing precipitated withdrawal,” Strayer explained. “The two primary strategies are low-dose buprenorphine initiation [LDBI, less than 2 mg, sometimes called microdosing] and high-dose [HDBI, ≥ 16 mg] buprenorphine initiation. HDBI is attractive because the primary treatment of buprenorphine-precipitated withdrawal is more buprenorphine.
“Additionally, using a high dose up front immediately transitions the patient to therapeutic blood levels, which protects the patient from withdrawal, cravings, and overdose from dangerous opioids (heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone).”
However, “the contamination and now replacement of heroin with fentanyl in the street drug supply has challenged buprenorphine initiation, because fentanyl, when used chronically, accumulates in the body and leaks into the bloodstream slowly over time, preventing the opioid washout that is required to eliminate the risk of precipitated withdrawal when buprenorphine is administered,” said Dr. Strayer.
The current study demonstrates that patients who are initiated with a first dose of 8-16 mg buprenorphine are unlikely to experience precipitated withdrawal and are successfully transitioned to buprenorphine maintenance and clinic follow-up, Dr. Snyder said, but he was surprised by the low rate of precipitated withdrawal in the current study, “which is discordant with what is being anecdotally reported across the country.”
However, the take-home message for clinicians is the support for the initiation of buprenorphine in emergency department settings at a starting dose of 8-16 mg, regardless of reported fentanyl use, he said. “Given the huge impact buprenorphine therapy has on OUD-related mortality, clinicians should make every effort to initiate buprenorphine for OUD patients at every opportunity, and precipitated withdrawal is very unlikely in appropriately selected patients.
“Many clinicians remain reluctant to initiate buprenorphine in ED settings for unfamiliarity with the drug, fear of precipitated withdrawal, or concerns around the certainty of outpatient follow-up,” Dr. Snyder said. “Education, encouragement, systems programming, such as including decision support within the electronic health record, and role-modeling from local champions will promote wider adoption of this lifesaving practice.”
Looking ahead, “more research, including prospective research, is needed to refine best practices around buprenorphine administration,” said Dr. Snyder. Questions to address include which patients are most at risk for precipitated withdrawal and whether there are alternatives to standard initiation dosing that are sufficiently unlikely to cause precipitated withdrawal. “Possibly effective alternatives include buprenorphine initiation by administration of long-acting injectable depot buprenorphine, which accumulates slowly, potentially avoiding precipitated withdrawal, as well as a slow intravenous buprenorphine infusion such as 9 mg given over 12 hours.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Snyder disclosed grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the California Department of Health Care Services during the study. Dr. Strayer reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
based on data from nearly 900 individuals.
California EDs include a facilitation program known as CA Bridge for the treatment of opioid use disorder. Guidelines for CA Bridge call for high-dose buprenorphine to treat patients in drug withdrawal, with doses starting at 8-16 mg, Hannah Snyder, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote.
“Buprenorphine has been repeatedly shown to save lives and prevent overdoses,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We know that emergency department–initiated buprenorphine is an essential tool for increasing access. In the era of fentanyl, both patients and providers have expressed concerns that buprenorphine may not work as well as it did when patients were more likely to be using heroin or opioid pills.
“This retrospective cohort study provides additional information about emergency department buprenorphine as fentanyl becomes increasingly prevalent.”
In a research letter published in JAMA Network Open, the investigators reviewed data from the electronic health records of 896 patients who presented with opioid use disorder (OUD) at 16 CA Bridge EDs between Jan. 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020. All patients with OUD were included regardless of chief concern, current treatment, treatment desires, or withdrawal. A total of 87 individuals reported fentanyl use; if no fentanyl use was reported, the patient was classified as not using fentanyl. The median age of the patients was 35 years, two thirds were male, approximately 46% were White and non-Hispanic, and 30% had unstable housing.
The primary outcome was follow-up engagement at 7-14 days and 25-37 days.
A total of 492 patients received buprenorphine, including 44 fentanyl users, and 439 initiated high doses of 8-32 mg. At a 30-day follow-up, eight patients had precipitated withdrawal, including two cases in fentanyl users; none of these cases required hospital admission.
The follow-up engagement was similar for both groups, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.60 for administered buprenorphine at the initial ED encounter, 1.09 for 7-day follow-up, and 1.33 for 30-day follow-up.
The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of clinical documentation, which likely resulted in underreporting of fentanyl use and follow-up, the researchers noted. However, the results supported the effectiveness of buprenorphine for ED patients in withdrawal with a history of fentanyl exposure.
“We were pleased to see that precipitated withdrawal was relatively uncommon in this study, and that patients who did and did not use fentanyl followed up at similar rates,” said Dr. Snyder. “This aligns with our clinical experience and prior research showing that emergency department buprenorphine starts continue to be an essential tool.”
The message for clinicians: “If a patient presents to the emergency department in objective opioid withdrawal and desires buprenorphine, they should be offered treatment in that moment,” Dr. Snyder said. “Treatment protocols used by hospitals in this study are available online. Emergency departments can offer compassionate and evidence-based treatment initiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.”
More data needed on dosing strategies
“We need additional research to determine best practices for patients who use fentanyl and want to start buprenorphine, but are not yet in withdrawal,” Dr. Snyder said. “Doses of buprenorphine like those in this study are only appropriate for patients who are in withdrawal with objective signs, so some patients may struggle to wait long enough after their last use to go into sufficient withdrawal.”
Precipitated withdrawal does occur in some cases, said Dr. Snyder. “If it does, the emergency department is a very good place to manage it. We need additional research to determine best practices in management to make patients as comfortable as possible, including additional high-dose buprenorphine as well as additional adjunctive agents.”
Findings support buprenorphine
“The classic approach to buprenorphine initiation, which emerged from psychiatry outpatient office visits, is to start with very small doses of buprenorphine [2-4 mg] and titrate up slowly,” Reuben J. Strayer, MD, said in an interview.
“This dose range turns out to be the ‘sour spot’ most likely to cause the most important complication around buprenorphine initiation–precipitated withdrawal,” said Dr. Strayer, the director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York.
“One of the current focus areas of OUD treatment research is determining how to initiate buprenorphine without entailing a period of spontaneous withdrawal and without causing precipitated withdrawal,” Strayer explained. “The two primary strategies are low-dose buprenorphine initiation [LDBI, less than 2 mg, sometimes called microdosing] and high-dose [HDBI, ≥ 16 mg] buprenorphine initiation. HDBI is attractive because the primary treatment of buprenorphine-precipitated withdrawal is more buprenorphine.
“Additionally, using a high dose up front immediately transitions the patient to therapeutic blood levels, which protects the patient from withdrawal, cravings, and overdose from dangerous opioids (heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone).”
However, “the contamination and now replacement of heroin with fentanyl in the street drug supply has challenged buprenorphine initiation, because fentanyl, when used chronically, accumulates in the body and leaks into the bloodstream slowly over time, preventing the opioid washout that is required to eliminate the risk of precipitated withdrawal when buprenorphine is administered,” said Dr. Strayer.
The current study demonstrates that patients who are initiated with a first dose of 8-16 mg buprenorphine are unlikely to experience precipitated withdrawal and are successfully transitioned to buprenorphine maintenance and clinic follow-up, Dr. Snyder said, but he was surprised by the low rate of precipitated withdrawal in the current study, “which is discordant with what is being anecdotally reported across the country.”
However, the take-home message for clinicians is the support for the initiation of buprenorphine in emergency department settings at a starting dose of 8-16 mg, regardless of reported fentanyl use, he said. “Given the huge impact buprenorphine therapy has on OUD-related mortality, clinicians should make every effort to initiate buprenorphine for OUD patients at every opportunity, and precipitated withdrawal is very unlikely in appropriately selected patients.
“Many clinicians remain reluctant to initiate buprenorphine in ED settings for unfamiliarity with the drug, fear of precipitated withdrawal, or concerns around the certainty of outpatient follow-up,” Dr. Snyder said. “Education, encouragement, systems programming, such as including decision support within the electronic health record, and role-modeling from local champions will promote wider adoption of this lifesaving practice.”
Looking ahead, “more research, including prospective research, is needed to refine best practices around buprenorphine administration,” said Dr. Snyder. Questions to address include which patients are most at risk for precipitated withdrawal and whether there are alternatives to standard initiation dosing that are sufficiently unlikely to cause precipitated withdrawal. “Possibly effective alternatives include buprenorphine initiation by administration of long-acting injectable depot buprenorphine, which accumulates slowly, potentially avoiding precipitated withdrawal, as well as a slow intravenous buprenorphine infusion such as 9 mg given over 12 hours.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Snyder disclosed grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the California Department of Health Care Services during the study. Dr. Strayer reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Once-daily stimulant for ADHD safe, effective at 1 year
new research shows.
Results from a phase 3, multicenter, dose-optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.
“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.
The study was published online in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.
Safety at 1 year
The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate, coformulated with immediate-release d-MPH.
SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.
Azstarys was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.
For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial.
After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.
After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study because of a TEAE during the treatment phase.
The investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.
There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.
The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.
Efficacy at 1 year
ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.
At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale–5 score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).
The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.
Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).
CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.
These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.
“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”
‘Reassuring data’
Commenting on the findings, Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.
“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.
“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.
Overall, the safety data reported in the study are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.
However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.
“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment, and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”
The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows.
Results from a phase 3, multicenter, dose-optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.
“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.
The study was published online in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.
Safety at 1 year
The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate, coformulated with immediate-release d-MPH.
SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.
Azstarys was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.
For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial.
After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.
After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study because of a TEAE during the treatment phase.
The investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.
There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.
The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.
Efficacy at 1 year
ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.
At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale–5 score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).
The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.
Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).
CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.
These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.
“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”
‘Reassuring data’
Commenting on the findings, Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.
“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.
“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.
Overall, the safety data reported in the study are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.
However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.
“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment, and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”
The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows.
Results from a phase 3, multicenter, dose-optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.
“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.
The study was published online in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.
Safety at 1 year
The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate, coformulated with immediate-release d-MPH.
SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.
Azstarys was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.
For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial.
After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.
After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study because of a TEAE during the treatment phase.
The investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.
There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.
The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.
Efficacy at 1 year
ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.
At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale–5 score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).
The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.
Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).
CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.
These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.
“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”
‘Reassuring data’
Commenting on the findings, Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.
“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.
“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.
Overall, the safety data reported in the study are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.
However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.
“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment, and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”
The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
Who can sue docs for wrongful death? Some states are trying to expand that group
In addition, the types of emotional damage that physicians can be sued for is expanding in pockets across the nation. The latest effort to expand the capacity to sue, a bill in New York state, failed when it was not signed by the governor – but a toned-down bill is in the works.
The impact of New York’s proposed expansion of wrongful death lawsuits would have been widespread. The New York legislation would have expanded the definition of “close family members” to include spouses, domestic partners, children, parents, stepparents, siblings, grandparents, and perhaps more. Additionally, lawsuits could have allowed juries to determine “close family members” of the deceased patient on the basis of specific circumstances of the person’s relationship with the decedent.
Currently, every state allows a wrongful death claim to be filed by immediate family members. If the patient who died was married, a surviving spouse could bring the lawsuit. If the patient had been unmarried, an adult child could bring the lawsuit in some states. A parent typically brings a lawsuit if their minor child has died from alleged wrongful death. In some states, one member of a civil union or domestic partnership may bring a wrongful death lawsuit. And if a single adult has no children or spouse/partner, more distant family members, including aunts, uncles, siblings, or grandparents, may file the suit.
The New York bill would also have expanded compensable damages to include loss of affection and companionship, and it would have expanded emotional damages, which are not currently included in New York. It would also have extended the statute of limitations of a wrongful death claim from 2 years to 3.5 years.
In general, in states that allow emotional distress to be included in wrongful death lawsuits, attorneys must demonstrate that survivors have suffered mental harm, such as depression, loss of sleep, fear, and anger, says Russ Haven, JD, general counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group. While mental harm is not particularly easy to prove, attorneys must show that survivors have ongoing distress that is the direct result of the loss of the loved one and that the distress is significant enough to severely affect their quality of life.
Mr. Haven gives an example of emotional distress: “We worked with a woman who lost her fiancé in a motor vehicle accident,” he says. “The funeral ended up on the day she had scheduled her wedding dress fitting. A situation like that causes a good deal of lasting emotional distress.”
Expanding family members who can bring the lawsuit
The fact that a fiancé could be included in a wrongful death settlement is another aspect of the New York bill that was central to arguments both for and against the expansion of family members who can make claims. “We think a modern society includes unmarried partners, grandparents, siblings, and others,” says Mr. Haven.
“The language of who is a close family member might seem clear, but to a defense attorney, it isn’t,” says Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. “This could end up being a situation where someone has 40 grandchildren, and all could be considered close family members.”
Many states currently allow damages for claims of grief and mental anguish resulting from a wrongful death.
In her recent veto of the Grieving Families Act, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took fire for her choices. The bill represented years of effort by the state legislature to expand the qualifiers for wrongful death lawsuits. Those supporting what ultimately became Senate Bill S74A believed they finally had the law over the finish line. Those opposed breathed a sigh of relief when the bill was vetoed.
Had Gov. Hochul signed Bill 274A, the effect on costs would have been enormous for physicians. New York already has the highest cumulative medical liability payouts in the nation, according to the Medical Society of the State of New York.
The MSSNY was among many parties that fought against the law. The Greater New York Hospital Association, insurance companies, the Defense Association of New York, and the New York Conference of Mayors all joined in lobbying against the bill.
“Gov. Hochul, in her veto message, correctly noted that the proposed New York legislation represented an extraordinary departure from New York’s wrongful death jurisprudence,” says Remi Stone, director of government relations at The Doctors Company, part of the TDC Group. “I would add that while there are some other states that allow grief damages, none are as wide-ranging as the proposed legislation.”
The NYPIRG, the AARP, and the New York Immigration Coalition supported the bill. In a statement following the veto, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association said: “By vetoing the Grieving Families Act, Gov. Hochul has sided with insurance companies, the health care industry, big corporations, and anyone else who doesn’t want to be held accountable for the negligent killing of a person. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and would rectify over a century of injustice.”
Following Gov. Hochul’s veto, the bill’s proponents and the state legislature vowed to return to the drawing board and construct a bill that the governor would eventually approve. For now, however, the controversial legislation has been put to rest.
Mr. Haven and the NYPIRG argue that New York lags behind many other states in allowing survivors to claim loss for their emotional distress. “When there is relationship loss, it has a great impact on your life,” Mr. Haven says, “and this goes beyond simply the financial impact.”
“The bill was well intended but completely vague on who could bring lawsuits and would have increased medical malpractice insurance by far too much,” says MSSNY President Parag Mehta, MD. “For safety net hospitals, one lawsuit would halt their ability to provide many programs aimed at underserved populations.”
Peter Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claim and litigation services at Healthcare Risk Advisors (part of the TDC Group), had this to say: “The current ‘recoverable’ damages in New York in a wrongful death case include loss of guidance and support for minor children of a decedent. Those damages have been sustained at $2 million per child. It is rationally very challenging, if not impossible, to distinguish between those damages and the proposed damages that the very same people would have been entitled to under the proposed statute.”
What will happen in the future?
While the veto has stalled New York’s wrongful death expansion for now, supporters in and out of the legislature remain determined to continue their fight. “Advocates argue that the bill would have brought the state in line with wrongful death law in others,” says Brian Whitelaw, JD, a partner at Michigan’s Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip. “But if the bill had become law as written, the economic impact would have been substantial.”
Mr. Whitelaw says that such wide-ranging lawsuits can have consequences that extend far beyond physicians’ insurance premiums. “This could impact the average person on the street’s ability to obtain the medical care they need, because doctors will go elsewhere to practice,” he says. “Beyond impacting the health care system, it can hurt small businesses as well.”
Mr. Haven says supporters of the expansion are far from finished with their efforts. “New York’s current law dates back to 1847, and it was cutting edge then,” he says. “It was designed for an agrarian society where if the husband died, his widow and children wouldn’t become destitute. Now, 175 years later, we realize that the law has biases, and tort law has evolved. The state needs to evolve as well.”
For his part, Dr. Mehta is open to a dialogue with lawmakers to revise the law in a manner agreeable to all parties. “We want to work together to make the system right,” he says. “The liability system in New York needs an overall holistic change, and we are available at any time to have discussions. The vetoed bill was a Band-Aid and didn’t address the main, underlying issues in the state.”
Mr. Stebbins, too, says he would like to continue the debate over how an expansion should look. “We hope to go through a discussion on caps to these suits,” he explains. “We have already seen the cap of $10 million broken four times in the past few years through nuclear verdicts. That’s something we need to address.”
Given the legislature’s overwhelming support for the bill, some version of it will likely make another appearance in the coming session. Whether or not it can strike the middle ground that will make all parties happy – including the governor – is yet to be seen. “Is it wrong to seek compensation for pain and suffering from a wrongful death?” asks Mr. Whitelaw. “No. But there must be limits to such laws, or where does it end?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In addition, the types of emotional damage that physicians can be sued for is expanding in pockets across the nation. The latest effort to expand the capacity to sue, a bill in New York state, failed when it was not signed by the governor – but a toned-down bill is in the works.
The impact of New York’s proposed expansion of wrongful death lawsuits would have been widespread. The New York legislation would have expanded the definition of “close family members” to include spouses, domestic partners, children, parents, stepparents, siblings, grandparents, and perhaps more. Additionally, lawsuits could have allowed juries to determine “close family members” of the deceased patient on the basis of specific circumstances of the person’s relationship with the decedent.
Currently, every state allows a wrongful death claim to be filed by immediate family members. If the patient who died was married, a surviving spouse could bring the lawsuit. If the patient had been unmarried, an adult child could bring the lawsuit in some states. A parent typically brings a lawsuit if their minor child has died from alleged wrongful death. In some states, one member of a civil union or domestic partnership may bring a wrongful death lawsuit. And if a single adult has no children or spouse/partner, more distant family members, including aunts, uncles, siblings, or grandparents, may file the suit.
The New York bill would also have expanded compensable damages to include loss of affection and companionship, and it would have expanded emotional damages, which are not currently included in New York. It would also have extended the statute of limitations of a wrongful death claim from 2 years to 3.5 years.
In general, in states that allow emotional distress to be included in wrongful death lawsuits, attorneys must demonstrate that survivors have suffered mental harm, such as depression, loss of sleep, fear, and anger, says Russ Haven, JD, general counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group. While mental harm is not particularly easy to prove, attorneys must show that survivors have ongoing distress that is the direct result of the loss of the loved one and that the distress is significant enough to severely affect their quality of life.
Mr. Haven gives an example of emotional distress: “We worked with a woman who lost her fiancé in a motor vehicle accident,” he says. “The funeral ended up on the day she had scheduled her wedding dress fitting. A situation like that causes a good deal of lasting emotional distress.”
Expanding family members who can bring the lawsuit
The fact that a fiancé could be included in a wrongful death settlement is another aspect of the New York bill that was central to arguments both for and against the expansion of family members who can make claims. “We think a modern society includes unmarried partners, grandparents, siblings, and others,” says Mr. Haven.
“The language of who is a close family member might seem clear, but to a defense attorney, it isn’t,” says Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. “This could end up being a situation where someone has 40 grandchildren, and all could be considered close family members.”
Many states currently allow damages for claims of grief and mental anguish resulting from a wrongful death.
In her recent veto of the Grieving Families Act, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took fire for her choices. The bill represented years of effort by the state legislature to expand the qualifiers for wrongful death lawsuits. Those supporting what ultimately became Senate Bill S74A believed they finally had the law over the finish line. Those opposed breathed a sigh of relief when the bill was vetoed.
Had Gov. Hochul signed Bill 274A, the effect on costs would have been enormous for physicians. New York already has the highest cumulative medical liability payouts in the nation, according to the Medical Society of the State of New York.
The MSSNY was among many parties that fought against the law. The Greater New York Hospital Association, insurance companies, the Defense Association of New York, and the New York Conference of Mayors all joined in lobbying against the bill.
“Gov. Hochul, in her veto message, correctly noted that the proposed New York legislation represented an extraordinary departure from New York’s wrongful death jurisprudence,” says Remi Stone, director of government relations at The Doctors Company, part of the TDC Group. “I would add that while there are some other states that allow grief damages, none are as wide-ranging as the proposed legislation.”
The NYPIRG, the AARP, and the New York Immigration Coalition supported the bill. In a statement following the veto, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association said: “By vetoing the Grieving Families Act, Gov. Hochul has sided with insurance companies, the health care industry, big corporations, and anyone else who doesn’t want to be held accountable for the negligent killing of a person. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and would rectify over a century of injustice.”
Following Gov. Hochul’s veto, the bill’s proponents and the state legislature vowed to return to the drawing board and construct a bill that the governor would eventually approve. For now, however, the controversial legislation has been put to rest.
Mr. Haven and the NYPIRG argue that New York lags behind many other states in allowing survivors to claim loss for their emotional distress. “When there is relationship loss, it has a great impact on your life,” Mr. Haven says, “and this goes beyond simply the financial impact.”
“The bill was well intended but completely vague on who could bring lawsuits and would have increased medical malpractice insurance by far too much,” says MSSNY President Parag Mehta, MD. “For safety net hospitals, one lawsuit would halt their ability to provide many programs aimed at underserved populations.”
Peter Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claim and litigation services at Healthcare Risk Advisors (part of the TDC Group), had this to say: “The current ‘recoverable’ damages in New York in a wrongful death case include loss of guidance and support for minor children of a decedent. Those damages have been sustained at $2 million per child. It is rationally very challenging, if not impossible, to distinguish between those damages and the proposed damages that the very same people would have been entitled to under the proposed statute.”
What will happen in the future?
While the veto has stalled New York’s wrongful death expansion for now, supporters in and out of the legislature remain determined to continue their fight. “Advocates argue that the bill would have brought the state in line with wrongful death law in others,” says Brian Whitelaw, JD, a partner at Michigan’s Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip. “But if the bill had become law as written, the economic impact would have been substantial.”
Mr. Whitelaw says that such wide-ranging lawsuits can have consequences that extend far beyond physicians’ insurance premiums. “This could impact the average person on the street’s ability to obtain the medical care they need, because doctors will go elsewhere to practice,” he says. “Beyond impacting the health care system, it can hurt small businesses as well.”
Mr. Haven says supporters of the expansion are far from finished with their efforts. “New York’s current law dates back to 1847, and it was cutting edge then,” he says. “It was designed for an agrarian society where if the husband died, his widow and children wouldn’t become destitute. Now, 175 years later, we realize that the law has biases, and tort law has evolved. The state needs to evolve as well.”
For his part, Dr. Mehta is open to a dialogue with lawmakers to revise the law in a manner agreeable to all parties. “We want to work together to make the system right,” he says. “The liability system in New York needs an overall holistic change, and we are available at any time to have discussions. The vetoed bill was a Band-Aid and didn’t address the main, underlying issues in the state.”
Mr. Stebbins, too, says he would like to continue the debate over how an expansion should look. “We hope to go through a discussion on caps to these suits,” he explains. “We have already seen the cap of $10 million broken four times in the past few years through nuclear verdicts. That’s something we need to address.”
Given the legislature’s overwhelming support for the bill, some version of it will likely make another appearance in the coming session. Whether or not it can strike the middle ground that will make all parties happy – including the governor – is yet to be seen. “Is it wrong to seek compensation for pain and suffering from a wrongful death?” asks Mr. Whitelaw. “No. But there must be limits to such laws, or where does it end?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In addition, the types of emotional damage that physicians can be sued for is expanding in pockets across the nation. The latest effort to expand the capacity to sue, a bill in New York state, failed when it was not signed by the governor – but a toned-down bill is in the works.
The impact of New York’s proposed expansion of wrongful death lawsuits would have been widespread. The New York legislation would have expanded the definition of “close family members” to include spouses, domestic partners, children, parents, stepparents, siblings, grandparents, and perhaps more. Additionally, lawsuits could have allowed juries to determine “close family members” of the deceased patient on the basis of specific circumstances of the person’s relationship with the decedent.
Currently, every state allows a wrongful death claim to be filed by immediate family members. If the patient who died was married, a surviving spouse could bring the lawsuit. If the patient had been unmarried, an adult child could bring the lawsuit in some states. A parent typically brings a lawsuit if their minor child has died from alleged wrongful death. In some states, one member of a civil union or domestic partnership may bring a wrongful death lawsuit. And if a single adult has no children or spouse/partner, more distant family members, including aunts, uncles, siblings, or grandparents, may file the suit.
The New York bill would also have expanded compensable damages to include loss of affection and companionship, and it would have expanded emotional damages, which are not currently included in New York. It would also have extended the statute of limitations of a wrongful death claim from 2 years to 3.5 years.
In general, in states that allow emotional distress to be included in wrongful death lawsuits, attorneys must demonstrate that survivors have suffered mental harm, such as depression, loss of sleep, fear, and anger, says Russ Haven, JD, general counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group. While mental harm is not particularly easy to prove, attorneys must show that survivors have ongoing distress that is the direct result of the loss of the loved one and that the distress is significant enough to severely affect their quality of life.
Mr. Haven gives an example of emotional distress: “We worked with a woman who lost her fiancé in a motor vehicle accident,” he says. “The funeral ended up on the day she had scheduled her wedding dress fitting. A situation like that causes a good deal of lasting emotional distress.”
Expanding family members who can bring the lawsuit
The fact that a fiancé could be included in a wrongful death settlement is another aspect of the New York bill that was central to arguments both for and against the expansion of family members who can make claims. “We think a modern society includes unmarried partners, grandparents, siblings, and others,” says Mr. Haven.
“The language of who is a close family member might seem clear, but to a defense attorney, it isn’t,” says Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. “This could end up being a situation where someone has 40 grandchildren, and all could be considered close family members.”
Many states currently allow damages for claims of grief and mental anguish resulting from a wrongful death.
In her recent veto of the Grieving Families Act, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took fire for her choices. The bill represented years of effort by the state legislature to expand the qualifiers for wrongful death lawsuits. Those supporting what ultimately became Senate Bill S74A believed they finally had the law over the finish line. Those opposed breathed a sigh of relief when the bill was vetoed.
Had Gov. Hochul signed Bill 274A, the effect on costs would have been enormous for physicians. New York already has the highest cumulative medical liability payouts in the nation, according to the Medical Society of the State of New York.
The MSSNY was among many parties that fought against the law. The Greater New York Hospital Association, insurance companies, the Defense Association of New York, and the New York Conference of Mayors all joined in lobbying against the bill.
“Gov. Hochul, in her veto message, correctly noted that the proposed New York legislation represented an extraordinary departure from New York’s wrongful death jurisprudence,” says Remi Stone, director of government relations at The Doctors Company, part of the TDC Group. “I would add that while there are some other states that allow grief damages, none are as wide-ranging as the proposed legislation.”
The NYPIRG, the AARP, and the New York Immigration Coalition supported the bill. In a statement following the veto, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association said: “By vetoing the Grieving Families Act, Gov. Hochul has sided with insurance companies, the health care industry, big corporations, and anyone else who doesn’t want to be held accountable for the negligent killing of a person. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and would rectify over a century of injustice.”
Following Gov. Hochul’s veto, the bill’s proponents and the state legislature vowed to return to the drawing board and construct a bill that the governor would eventually approve. For now, however, the controversial legislation has been put to rest.
Mr. Haven and the NYPIRG argue that New York lags behind many other states in allowing survivors to claim loss for their emotional distress. “When there is relationship loss, it has a great impact on your life,” Mr. Haven says, “and this goes beyond simply the financial impact.”
“The bill was well intended but completely vague on who could bring lawsuits and would have increased medical malpractice insurance by far too much,” says MSSNY President Parag Mehta, MD. “For safety net hospitals, one lawsuit would halt their ability to provide many programs aimed at underserved populations.”
Peter Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claim and litigation services at Healthcare Risk Advisors (part of the TDC Group), had this to say: “The current ‘recoverable’ damages in New York in a wrongful death case include loss of guidance and support for minor children of a decedent. Those damages have been sustained at $2 million per child. It is rationally very challenging, if not impossible, to distinguish between those damages and the proposed damages that the very same people would have been entitled to under the proposed statute.”
What will happen in the future?
While the veto has stalled New York’s wrongful death expansion for now, supporters in and out of the legislature remain determined to continue their fight. “Advocates argue that the bill would have brought the state in line with wrongful death law in others,” says Brian Whitelaw, JD, a partner at Michigan’s Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip. “But if the bill had become law as written, the economic impact would have been substantial.”
Mr. Whitelaw says that such wide-ranging lawsuits can have consequences that extend far beyond physicians’ insurance premiums. “This could impact the average person on the street’s ability to obtain the medical care they need, because doctors will go elsewhere to practice,” he says. “Beyond impacting the health care system, it can hurt small businesses as well.”
Mr. Haven says supporters of the expansion are far from finished with their efforts. “New York’s current law dates back to 1847, and it was cutting edge then,” he says. “It was designed for an agrarian society where if the husband died, his widow and children wouldn’t become destitute. Now, 175 years later, we realize that the law has biases, and tort law has evolved. The state needs to evolve as well.”
For his part, Dr. Mehta is open to a dialogue with lawmakers to revise the law in a manner agreeable to all parties. “We want to work together to make the system right,” he says. “The liability system in New York needs an overall holistic change, and we are available at any time to have discussions. The vetoed bill was a Band-Aid and didn’t address the main, underlying issues in the state.”
Mr. Stebbins, too, says he would like to continue the debate over how an expansion should look. “We hope to go through a discussion on caps to these suits,” he explains. “We have already seen the cap of $10 million broken four times in the past few years through nuclear verdicts. That’s something we need to address.”
Given the legislature’s overwhelming support for the bill, some version of it will likely make another appearance in the coming session. Whether or not it can strike the middle ground that will make all parties happy – including the governor – is yet to be seen. “Is it wrong to seek compensation for pain and suffering from a wrongful death?” asks Mr. Whitelaw. “No. But there must be limits to such laws, or where does it end?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.