User login
Higher risk of death with endocrine therapy nonadherence
TOPLINE:
a new systematic review found.
METHODOLOGY:
- The investigators conducted a systematic literature search of five databases, looking for studies involving patients with nonmetastatic hormone receptor–positive breast cancer that were published between 2010 and 2020.
- Adequate adherence was defined as a medical possession ratio – the percentage of days the prescribed treatment dose of adjuvant endocrine therapy was available to the patient – of at least 80%.
- Medication nonpersistence was defined as a period in which no new adjuvant endocrine therapy prescriptions were filled before the scheduled end of treatment of 90-180 days, depending on the study.
- The impact of both parameters on event-free survival, which included breast cancer recurrence, disease-free survival, breast cancer–specific survival, and overall survival cancer was calculated.
- Of 2,026 articles retrieved, 14 studies, with sample sizes ranging from 857 to 30,573 patients, met the eligibility and quality criteria; 11 examined patient adherence, and 6 examined patient persistence.
TAKEAWAY:
- Of 10 studies that assessed event-free survival, 7 showed significantly worse survival for nonadherent or nonpersistent patients, at hazard ratios of 1.39-2.44.
- Of nine studies that examined overall survival, seven demonstrated a significantly higher risk for mortality in the groups with nonadherence and nonpersistence, at HRs of 1.26-2.18.
- The largest study, which included data on more than 30,000 patients in Taiwan, found that nonadherence and nonpersistence were associated with a significantly increased risk for mortality, at HRs of 1.98 and 2.18, respectively.
IN PRACTICE:
“The available data highlight the dangers of nonadherence and nonpersistence, showing an up to twofold higher risk of relapse or death for patients who do not use endocrine treatment as prescribed,” the researchers said. “Importantly, improving adherence and persistence represents a low-hanging fruit for increasing survival in luminal breast cancer.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Finn Magnus Eliassen, MD, department of surgery, Stavanger (Norway) University Hospital, was published online on July 4 in BMC Cancer.
LIMITATIONS:
- The review is limited by the relatively small number of studies that met the eligibility criteria and by their heterogeneity, which ruled out a meta-analysis.
- There are no gold-standard definitions of adherence and persistence.
DISCLOSURES:
- No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
- A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
a new systematic review found.
METHODOLOGY:
- The investigators conducted a systematic literature search of five databases, looking for studies involving patients with nonmetastatic hormone receptor–positive breast cancer that were published between 2010 and 2020.
- Adequate adherence was defined as a medical possession ratio – the percentage of days the prescribed treatment dose of adjuvant endocrine therapy was available to the patient – of at least 80%.
- Medication nonpersistence was defined as a period in which no new adjuvant endocrine therapy prescriptions were filled before the scheduled end of treatment of 90-180 days, depending on the study.
- The impact of both parameters on event-free survival, which included breast cancer recurrence, disease-free survival, breast cancer–specific survival, and overall survival cancer was calculated.
- Of 2,026 articles retrieved, 14 studies, with sample sizes ranging from 857 to 30,573 patients, met the eligibility and quality criteria; 11 examined patient adherence, and 6 examined patient persistence.
TAKEAWAY:
- Of 10 studies that assessed event-free survival, 7 showed significantly worse survival for nonadherent or nonpersistent patients, at hazard ratios of 1.39-2.44.
- Of nine studies that examined overall survival, seven demonstrated a significantly higher risk for mortality in the groups with nonadherence and nonpersistence, at HRs of 1.26-2.18.
- The largest study, which included data on more than 30,000 patients in Taiwan, found that nonadherence and nonpersistence were associated with a significantly increased risk for mortality, at HRs of 1.98 and 2.18, respectively.
IN PRACTICE:
“The available data highlight the dangers of nonadherence and nonpersistence, showing an up to twofold higher risk of relapse or death for patients who do not use endocrine treatment as prescribed,” the researchers said. “Importantly, improving adherence and persistence represents a low-hanging fruit for increasing survival in luminal breast cancer.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Finn Magnus Eliassen, MD, department of surgery, Stavanger (Norway) University Hospital, was published online on July 4 in BMC Cancer.
LIMITATIONS:
- The review is limited by the relatively small number of studies that met the eligibility criteria and by their heterogeneity, which ruled out a meta-analysis.
- There are no gold-standard definitions of adherence and persistence.
DISCLOSURES:
- No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
- A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
a new systematic review found.
METHODOLOGY:
- The investigators conducted a systematic literature search of five databases, looking for studies involving patients with nonmetastatic hormone receptor–positive breast cancer that were published between 2010 and 2020.
- Adequate adherence was defined as a medical possession ratio – the percentage of days the prescribed treatment dose of adjuvant endocrine therapy was available to the patient – of at least 80%.
- Medication nonpersistence was defined as a period in which no new adjuvant endocrine therapy prescriptions were filled before the scheduled end of treatment of 90-180 days, depending on the study.
- The impact of both parameters on event-free survival, which included breast cancer recurrence, disease-free survival, breast cancer–specific survival, and overall survival cancer was calculated.
- Of 2,026 articles retrieved, 14 studies, with sample sizes ranging from 857 to 30,573 patients, met the eligibility and quality criteria; 11 examined patient adherence, and 6 examined patient persistence.
TAKEAWAY:
- Of 10 studies that assessed event-free survival, 7 showed significantly worse survival for nonadherent or nonpersistent patients, at hazard ratios of 1.39-2.44.
- Of nine studies that examined overall survival, seven demonstrated a significantly higher risk for mortality in the groups with nonadherence and nonpersistence, at HRs of 1.26-2.18.
- The largest study, which included data on more than 30,000 patients in Taiwan, found that nonadherence and nonpersistence were associated with a significantly increased risk for mortality, at HRs of 1.98 and 2.18, respectively.
IN PRACTICE:
“The available data highlight the dangers of nonadherence and nonpersistence, showing an up to twofold higher risk of relapse or death for patients who do not use endocrine treatment as prescribed,” the researchers said. “Importantly, improving adherence and persistence represents a low-hanging fruit for increasing survival in luminal breast cancer.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Finn Magnus Eliassen, MD, department of surgery, Stavanger (Norway) University Hospital, was published online on July 4 in BMC Cancer.
LIMITATIONS:
- The review is limited by the relatively small number of studies that met the eligibility criteria and by their heterogeneity, which ruled out a meta-analysis.
- There are no gold-standard definitions of adherence and persistence.
DISCLOSURES:
- No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
- A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Can a biodegradable brain implant deliver lifesaving cancer meds?
It’s the latest advance in a rapidly growing field using ultrasound – high-frequency sound waves undetectable to humans – to fight cancer and other diseases.
The problem addressed by the researchers is the blood-brain barrier, a nearly impenetrable blood vessel lining that keeps harmful molecules from passing into the brain from the blood. But this lining can also block chemo drugs from reaching cancer cells.
So the scientists implanted 1-cm2 devices into the skulls of mice, directly behind the tumor site. The implants generate ultrasound waves, loosening the barrier and allowing the drugs to reach the tumor. The sound waves leave healthy tissue undamaged.
“You inject the drug into the body and turn on the ultrasound at the same time. You’re going to hit precisely at the tumor area every single time you use it,” said lead study author Thanh Nguyen, PhD, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Connecticut, Storrs.
The drug used in the study was paclitaxel, which normally struggles to get through the blood-brain barrier. The tumors shrank, and the mice doubled their lifetime, compared with untreated mice. The mice showed no bad health effects 6 months later.
Breaking through the blood-brain barrier
The biodegradable implant is made of glycine, an amino acid that’s also strongly piezoelectric, meaning it vibrates when subjected to an electrical current. To make it, researchers cultivated glycine crystals, shattered them into pieces, and finally used a process called electrospinning, which applies a high electrical voltage to the nanocrystals.
Voltage flows to the implant via an external device. The resulting ultrasound causes the tightly adhered cells of the blood-brain barrier to vibrate, stretching them out and creating space for pores to form.
“That allows in very tiny particles, including chemo drugs,” said Dr. Nguyen.
His earlier biodegradable implant broke apart from the force, but the new glycine implant is more flexible, stable, and highly piezoelectric. It could be implanted after a patient has surgery to remove a brain tumor, to continue treating residual cancer cells. The implant dissolves harmlessly in the body over time, and doctors can control its lifespan.
A new wave of uses for ultrasound
Dr. Nguyen’s study builds on similar efforts, including a recent clinical trial of a nonbiodegradable implant for treating brain tumors. Ultrasound can focus energy on precise targets in the body.
It’s like “using a magnifying glass to focus multiple beams of light on a point and burn a hole in a leaf,” said Neal Kassell, MD, founder and chairman of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation. This approach spares adjacent normal tissue.
Doctors now understand more than 30 ways that ultrasound interacts with tissue – from destroying abnormal tissue to delivering drugs more effectively to stimulating an immune response. A decade ago, only five such interactions were known.
This opens the door for treating “a wide spectrum of medical disorders,” from neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s to difficult-to-treat cancers of the prostate and pancreas, and even addiction, said Dr. Kassell.
Dr. Kassell envisions using focused ultrasound to treat brain tumors as an alternative (or complement) to surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or radiation therapy. In the meantime, implants have helped show “the effectiveness of opening the blood-brain barrier.”
Dr. Nguyen’s team plans on testing the safety and efficacy of their implant in pigs next. Eventually, Dr. Nguyen hopes to develop a patch with an array of implants to target different areas of the brain.
One study coauthor is cofounder of PiezoBioMembrane and SingleTimeMicroneedles. The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
It’s the latest advance in a rapidly growing field using ultrasound – high-frequency sound waves undetectable to humans – to fight cancer and other diseases.
The problem addressed by the researchers is the blood-brain barrier, a nearly impenetrable blood vessel lining that keeps harmful molecules from passing into the brain from the blood. But this lining can also block chemo drugs from reaching cancer cells.
So the scientists implanted 1-cm2 devices into the skulls of mice, directly behind the tumor site. The implants generate ultrasound waves, loosening the barrier and allowing the drugs to reach the tumor. The sound waves leave healthy tissue undamaged.
“You inject the drug into the body and turn on the ultrasound at the same time. You’re going to hit precisely at the tumor area every single time you use it,” said lead study author Thanh Nguyen, PhD, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Connecticut, Storrs.
The drug used in the study was paclitaxel, which normally struggles to get through the blood-brain barrier. The tumors shrank, and the mice doubled their lifetime, compared with untreated mice. The mice showed no bad health effects 6 months later.
Breaking through the blood-brain barrier
The biodegradable implant is made of glycine, an amino acid that’s also strongly piezoelectric, meaning it vibrates when subjected to an electrical current. To make it, researchers cultivated glycine crystals, shattered them into pieces, and finally used a process called electrospinning, which applies a high electrical voltage to the nanocrystals.
Voltage flows to the implant via an external device. The resulting ultrasound causes the tightly adhered cells of the blood-brain barrier to vibrate, stretching them out and creating space for pores to form.
“That allows in very tiny particles, including chemo drugs,” said Dr. Nguyen.
His earlier biodegradable implant broke apart from the force, but the new glycine implant is more flexible, stable, and highly piezoelectric. It could be implanted after a patient has surgery to remove a brain tumor, to continue treating residual cancer cells. The implant dissolves harmlessly in the body over time, and doctors can control its lifespan.
A new wave of uses for ultrasound
Dr. Nguyen’s study builds on similar efforts, including a recent clinical trial of a nonbiodegradable implant for treating brain tumors. Ultrasound can focus energy on precise targets in the body.
It’s like “using a magnifying glass to focus multiple beams of light on a point and burn a hole in a leaf,” said Neal Kassell, MD, founder and chairman of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation. This approach spares adjacent normal tissue.
Doctors now understand more than 30 ways that ultrasound interacts with tissue – from destroying abnormal tissue to delivering drugs more effectively to stimulating an immune response. A decade ago, only five such interactions were known.
This opens the door for treating “a wide spectrum of medical disorders,” from neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s to difficult-to-treat cancers of the prostate and pancreas, and even addiction, said Dr. Kassell.
Dr. Kassell envisions using focused ultrasound to treat brain tumors as an alternative (or complement) to surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or radiation therapy. In the meantime, implants have helped show “the effectiveness of opening the blood-brain barrier.”
Dr. Nguyen’s team plans on testing the safety and efficacy of their implant in pigs next. Eventually, Dr. Nguyen hopes to develop a patch with an array of implants to target different areas of the brain.
One study coauthor is cofounder of PiezoBioMembrane and SingleTimeMicroneedles. The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
It’s the latest advance in a rapidly growing field using ultrasound – high-frequency sound waves undetectable to humans – to fight cancer and other diseases.
The problem addressed by the researchers is the blood-brain barrier, a nearly impenetrable blood vessel lining that keeps harmful molecules from passing into the brain from the blood. But this lining can also block chemo drugs from reaching cancer cells.
So the scientists implanted 1-cm2 devices into the skulls of mice, directly behind the tumor site. The implants generate ultrasound waves, loosening the barrier and allowing the drugs to reach the tumor. The sound waves leave healthy tissue undamaged.
“You inject the drug into the body and turn on the ultrasound at the same time. You’re going to hit precisely at the tumor area every single time you use it,” said lead study author Thanh Nguyen, PhD, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Connecticut, Storrs.
The drug used in the study was paclitaxel, which normally struggles to get through the blood-brain barrier. The tumors shrank, and the mice doubled their lifetime, compared with untreated mice. The mice showed no bad health effects 6 months later.
Breaking through the blood-brain barrier
The biodegradable implant is made of glycine, an amino acid that’s also strongly piezoelectric, meaning it vibrates when subjected to an electrical current. To make it, researchers cultivated glycine crystals, shattered them into pieces, and finally used a process called electrospinning, which applies a high electrical voltage to the nanocrystals.
Voltage flows to the implant via an external device. The resulting ultrasound causes the tightly adhered cells of the blood-brain barrier to vibrate, stretching them out and creating space for pores to form.
“That allows in very tiny particles, including chemo drugs,” said Dr. Nguyen.
His earlier biodegradable implant broke apart from the force, but the new glycine implant is more flexible, stable, and highly piezoelectric. It could be implanted after a patient has surgery to remove a brain tumor, to continue treating residual cancer cells. The implant dissolves harmlessly in the body over time, and doctors can control its lifespan.
A new wave of uses for ultrasound
Dr. Nguyen’s study builds on similar efforts, including a recent clinical trial of a nonbiodegradable implant for treating brain tumors. Ultrasound can focus energy on precise targets in the body.
It’s like “using a magnifying glass to focus multiple beams of light on a point and burn a hole in a leaf,” said Neal Kassell, MD, founder and chairman of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation. This approach spares adjacent normal tissue.
Doctors now understand more than 30 ways that ultrasound interacts with tissue – from destroying abnormal tissue to delivering drugs more effectively to stimulating an immune response. A decade ago, only five such interactions were known.
This opens the door for treating “a wide spectrum of medical disorders,” from neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s to difficult-to-treat cancers of the prostate and pancreas, and even addiction, said Dr. Kassell.
Dr. Kassell envisions using focused ultrasound to treat brain tumors as an alternative (or complement) to surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or radiation therapy. In the meantime, implants have helped show “the effectiveness of opening the blood-brain barrier.”
Dr. Nguyen’s team plans on testing the safety and efficacy of their implant in pigs next. Eventually, Dr. Nguyen hopes to develop a patch with an array of implants to target different areas of the brain.
One study coauthor is cofounder of PiezoBioMembrane and SingleTimeMicroneedles. The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM SCIENCE ADVANCES
New AACE type 2 diabetes algorithm individualizes care
SEATTLE – The latest American Association of Clinical Endocrinology type 2 diabetes management algorithm uses graphics to focus on individualized care while adding newly compiled information about medication access and affordability, vaccinations, and weight loss drugs.
The clinical guidance document was presented at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and simultaneously published in Endocrine Practice.
Using text and colorful graphics, the document summarizes information from last year’s update and other recent AACE documents, including those addressing dyslipidemia and use of diabetes technology.
lead author Susan L. Samson, MD, PhD, chair of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at the Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, said in an interview.
Asked to comment, Anne L. Peters, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “I like their simple graphics. For the Department of Health Services in Los Angeles County, we have been painstakingly trying to create our own flow diagrams. ... These will help.”
Eleven separate algorithms with text and graphics
Included are 11 visual management algorithms, with accompanying text for each one. The first lists 10 overall management principles, including “lifestyle modification underlies all therapy,” “maintain or achieve optimal weight,” “choice of therapy includes ease of use and access,” “individualize all glucose targets,” “avoid hypoglycemia,” and “comorbidities must be managed for comprehensive care.”
Three more algorithms cover the diabetes-adjacent topics of adiposity-based chronic disease, prediabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension.
Four separate graphics address glucose-lowering. Two are “complications-centric” and “glucose-centric” algorithms, another covers insulin initiation and titration, and a table summarizes the benefits and risks of currently available glucose-lowering medications, as well as cost.
Splitting the glucose-lowering algorithms into “complications-centric” and “glucose-centric” graphics is new, Dr. Samson said. “The complications one comes first, deliberately. You need to think about: Does my patient have a history of or high risk for cardiovascular disease, heart failure, stroke, or diabetic kidney disease? And, you want to prioritize those medications that have evidence to improve outcomes with those different diabetes complications versus a one-size-fits-all approach.”
And for patients without those complications, the glucose-centric algorithm considers obesity, hypoglycemia risk, and access/cost issues. “So, overall the diabetes medication algorithm has been split in order to emphasize that personalized approach to decision-making,” Dr. Samson explained.
Also new is a table listing the benefits and risks of weight-loss medications, and another covering immunization guidance for people with diabetes based on recommendations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Coming out of the pandemic, we’re thinking about how can we protect our patients from infectious disease and all the comorbidities. In some cases, people with diabetes can have a much higher risk for adverse events,” Dr. Samson noted.
Regarding the weight-loss medications table, she pointed out that the task force couldn’t include the blockbuster twincretin tirzepatide because it’s not yet approved for weight loss by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. However, it is included in the glucose-lowering drug table with weight loss listed among its benefits.
“We want this to be a living document that should be updated in a timely fashion, and so, as these new indications are approved and we see more evidence supporting their different uses, this should be updated in a really timely fashion to reflect that,” Dr. Samson said.
The end of the document includes a full page of each graphic, meant for wall posting.
Dr. Peters noted that for the most part, the AACE guidelines and algorithm align with joint guidance by the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“For many years there seemed to be big differences between the AACE and ADA guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes. Although small differences still exist ... the ADA and AACE guidelines have become quite similar,” she said.
Dr. Peters also praised the AACE algorithm for providing “a pathway for people who have issues with access and cost.”
“I am incredibly proud that in the County of Los Angeles you can get a [glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist] and/or a [sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor] even with the most restricted MediCal insurance if indications are met. But there remain many people in many places where access and cost limit options, and I am grateful that AACE includes this in their algorithms,” she said.
Dr. Samson has reported receiving research support to the Mayo Clinic from Corcept, serving on a steering committee and being a national or overall principal investigator for Chiasma and Novartis, and being a committee chair for the American Board of Internal Medicine. Dr. Peters has reported relationships with Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care, receiving research grants from Abbott Diabetes Care and Insulet, and holding stock options in Teladoc and Omada Health.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SEATTLE – The latest American Association of Clinical Endocrinology type 2 diabetes management algorithm uses graphics to focus on individualized care while adding newly compiled information about medication access and affordability, vaccinations, and weight loss drugs.
The clinical guidance document was presented at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and simultaneously published in Endocrine Practice.
Using text and colorful graphics, the document summarizes information from last year’s update and other recent AACE documents, including those addressing dyslipidemia and use of diabetes technology.
lead author Susan L. Samson, MD, PhD, chair of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at the Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, said in an interview.
Asked to comment, Anne L. Peters, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “I like their simple graphics. For the Department of Health Services in Los Angeles County, we have been painstakingly trying to create our own flow diagrams. ... These will help.”
Eleven separate algorithms with text and graphics
Included are 11 visual management algorithms, with accompanying text for each one. The first lists 10 overall management principles, including “lifestyle modification underlies all therapy,” “maintain or achieve optimal weight,” “choice of therapy includes ease of use and access,” “individualize all glucose targets,” “avoid hypoglycemia,” and “comorbidities must be managed for comprehensive care.”
Three more algorithms cover the diabetes-adjacent topics of adiposity-based chronic disease, prediabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension.
Four separate graphics address glucose-lowering. Two are “complications-centric” and “glucose-centric” algorithms, another covers insulin initiation and titration, and a table summarizes the benefits and risks of currently available glucose-lowering medications, as well as cost.
Splitting the glucose-lowering algorithms into “complications-centric” and “glucose-centric” graphics is new, Dr. Samson said. “The complications one comes first, deliberately. You need to think about: Does my patient have a history of or high risk for cardiovascular disease, heart failure, stroke, or diabetic kidney disease? And, you want to prioritize those medications that have evidence to improve outcomes with those different diabetes complications versus a one-size-fits-all approach.”
And for patients without those complications, the glucose-centric algorithm considers obesity, hypoglycemia risk, and access/cost issues. “So, overall the diabetes medication algorithm has been split in order to emphasize that personalized approach to decision-making,” Dr. Samson explained.
Also new is a table listing the benefits and risks of weight-loss medications, and another covering immunization guidance for people with diabetes based on recommendations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Coming out of the pandemic, we’re thinking about how can we protect our patients from infectious disease and all the comorbidities. In some cases, people with diabetes can have a much higher risk for adverse events,” Dr. Samson noted.
Regarding the weight-loss medications table, she pointed out that the task force couldn’t include the blockbuster twincretin tirzepatide because it’s not yet approved for weight loss by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. However, it is included in the glucose-lowering drug table with weight loss listed among its benefits.
“We want this to be a living document that should be updated in a timely fashion, and so, as these new indications are approved and we see more evidence supporting their different uses, this should be updated in a really timely fashion to reflect that,” Dr. Samson said.
The end of the document includes a full page of each graphic, meant for wall posting.
Dr. Peters noted that for the most part, the AACE guidelines and algorithm align with joint guidance by the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“For many years there seemed to be big differences between the AACE and ADA guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes. Although small differences still exist ... the ADA and AACE guidelines have become quite similar,” she said.
Dr. Peters also praised the AACE algorithm for providing “a pathway for people who have issues with access and cost.”
“I am incredibly proud that in the County of Los Angeles you can get a [glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist] and/or a [sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor] even with the most restricted MediCal insurance if indications are met. But there remain many people in many places where access and cost limit options, and I am grateful that AACE includes this in their algorithms,” she said.
Dr. Samson has reported receiving research support to the Mayo Clinic from Corcept, serving on a steering committee and being a national or overall principal investigator for Chiasma and Novartis, and being a committee chair for the American Board of Internal Medicine. Dr. Peters has reported relationships with Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care, receiving research grants from Abbott Diabetes Care and Insulet, and holding stock options in Teladoc and Omada Health.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SEATTLE – The latest American Association of Clinical Endocrinology type 2 diabetes management algorithm uses graphics to focus on individualized care while adding newly compiled information about medication access and affordability, vaccinations, and weight loss drugs.
The clinical guidance document was presented at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and simultaneously published in Endocrine Practice.
Using text and colorful graphics, the document summarizes information from last year’s update and other recent AACE documents, including those addressing dyslipidemia and use of diabetes technology.
lead author Susan L. Samson, MD, PhD, chair of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at the Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, said in an interview.
Asked to comment, Anne L. Peters, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “I like their simple graphics. For the Department of Health Services in Los Angeles County, we have been painstakingly trying to create our own flow diagrams. ... These will help.”
Eleven separate algorithms with text and graphics
Included are 11 visual management algorithms, with accompanying text for each one. The first lists 10 overall management principles, including “lifestyle modification underlies all therapy,” “maintain or achieve optimal weight,” “choice of therapy includes ease of use and access,” “individualize all glucose targets,” “avoid hypoglycemia,” and “comorbidities must be managed for comprehensive care.”
Three more algorithms cover the diabetes-adjacent topics of adiposity-based chronic disease, prediabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension.
Four separate graphics address glucose-lowering. Two are “complications-centric” and “glucose-centric” algorithms, another covers insulin initiation and titration, and a table summarizes the benefits and risks of currently available glucose-lowering medications, as well as cost.
Splitting the glucose-lowering algorithms into “complications-centric” and “glucose-centric” graphics is new, Dr. Samson said. “The complications one comes first, deliberately. You need to think about: Does my patient have a history of or high risk for cardiovascular disease, heart failure, stroke, or diabetic kidney disease? And, you want to prioritize those medications that have evidence to improve outcomes with those different diabetes complications versus a one-size-fits-all approach.”
And for patients without those complications, the glucose-centric algorithm considers obesity, hypoglycemia risk, and access/cost issues. “So, overall the diabetes medication algorithm has been split in order to emphasize that personalized approach to decision-making,” Dr. Samson explained.
Also new is a table listing the benefits and risks of weight-loss medications, and another covering immunization guidance for people with diabetes based on recommendations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Coming out of the pandemic, we’re thinking about how can we protect our patients from infectious disease and all the comorbidities. In some cases, people with diabetes can have a much higher risk for adverse events,” Dr. Samson noted.
Regarding the weight-loss medications table, she pointed out that the task force couldn’t include the blockbuster twincretin tirzepatide because it’s not yet approved for weight loss by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. However, it is included in the glucose-lowering drug table with weight loss listed among its benefits.
“We want this to be a living document that should be updated in a timely fashion, and so, as these new indications are approved and we see more evidence supporting their different uses, this should be updated in a really timely fashion to reflect that,” Dr. Samson said.
The end of the document includes a full page of each graphic, meant for wall posting.
Dr. Peters noted that for the most part, the AACE guidelines and algorithm align with joint guidance by the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“For many years there seemed to be big differences between the AACE and ADA guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes. Although small differences still exist ... the ADA and AACE guidelines have become quite similar,” she said.
Dr. Peters also praised the AACE algorithm for providing “a pathway for people who have issues with access and cost.”
“I am incredibly proud that in the County of Los Angeles you can get a [glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist] and/or a [sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor] even with the most restricted MediCal insurance if indications are met. But there remain many people in many places where access and cost limit options, and I am grateful that AACE includes this in their algorithms,” she said.
Dr. Samson has reported receiving research support to the Mayo Clinic from Corcept, serving on a steering committee and being a national or overall principal investigator for Chiasma and Novartis, and being a committee chair for the American Board of Internal Medicine. Dr. Peters has reported relationships with Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care, receiving research grants from Abbott Diabetes Care and Insulet, and holding stock options in Teladoc and Omada Health.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT AACE 2023
Two drug classes appear effective for gastroparesis treatment
according to a new report.
Oral dopamine antagonists and tachykinin-1 antagonists appear superior to placebo, finds the study. In addition, some drugs rank higher for addressing individual symptoms.
“Gastroparesis has a substantial impact on quality of life and societal functioning for patients, and the costs to the health service are high,” Alexander Ford, MBChB, MD, a professor of gastroenterology and honorary consultant gastroenterologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Medical Research at St. James’s, University of Leeds, said in an interview.
“There are very few licensed therapies, but some novel drugs are in the pipeline, some existing drugs that are licensed for other conditions could be repurposed if efficacious, and some older drugs that have safety concerns may be beneficial,” he said. “Given the impact on patients and their symptoms, they may be willing to accept these safety risks in return for symptom improvement.”
Only one drug, the dopamine antagonist metoclopramide, has Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of gastroparesis, noted Dr. Ford and colleagues. The lack of other recommended drugs or new medications has resulted in off-label use of drugs in other classes.
The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
Investigating treatments
To address the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of licensed and unlicensed drugs for the condition, the researchers conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of drugs for gastroparesis dating from 1947 to September 2022. The trials involved more than dozen drugs in several classes.
They determined drug efficacy on the basis of global symptoms of gastroparesis and individual symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, or fullness. They judged safety on the basis of total adverse events and adverse events leading to withdrawal.
The research team extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses, assuming dropouts to be treatment failures. They reported efficacy as a pooled relative risk of symptoms not improving and ranked the drugs according to P-score.
The analysis included 29 randomized controlled trials with 3,772 patients. Only four trials were at low risk of bias.
Overall, only two drug classes were considered efficacious: oral dopamine antagonists (RR, 0.58; P-score, 0.96) and tachykinin-1 antagonists (RR, 0.69; P-score, 0.83).
On the basis of 25 trials that reported on global symptoms, clebopride ranked first for efficacy (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.99), followed by domperidone (RR, 0.69; P-score, 0.76). None of the other drugs were superior to the placebo. After direct and indirect comparisons, clebopride was superior to all other drugs except aprepitant.
After excluding three trials with a placebo run-in and a trial where only responders to single-blind domperidone were randomized, the researchers analyzed 21 trials with 2,233 patients. In this analysis, domperidone ranked first (RR, 0.48; P-score, 0.93), followed by oral metoclopramide (RR, 0.54; P-score, 0.87). None of the other drugs were superior to placebo.
Among 16 trials, including 1,381 patients, that confirmed delayed gastric emptying among all participants, only clebopride and metoclopramide were more efficacious than placebo. Clebopride ranked first (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.95) and metoclopramide ranked third (RR, 0.48).
Among 13 trials with 785 patients with diabetic gastroparesis, none of the active drugs were superior to placebo. Among 12 trials recruiting patients with idiopathic or mixed etiology gastroparesis, clebopride ranked first (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.93).
On the basis of trials that assessed individual symptoms, oral metoclopramide ranked first for nausea (RR, 0.46; P-score, 0.95), fullness (RR, 0.67; P-score, 0.86), and bloating (RR, 0.53; P-score, 0.97). However, the data came from one small trial. Tradipitant and TZP-102, a ghrelin agonist, were efficacious for nausea, and TZP-102 ranked second for fullness. No drugs were more efficacious than the placebo for abdominal pain or vomiting.
Among 20 trials that reported on the total number of adverse events, camicinal was the least likely to be associated with adverse events (RR, 0.77; P-score, 0.93) and prucalopride was the most likely to be associated with adverse events (RR, 2.96; P-score, 0.10). Prucalopride, oral metoclopramide, and aprepitant also were more likely than placebo to be associated with adverse events.
In 23 trials that reported on withdrawals caused by adverse events, camicinal was the least likely to be associated with withdrawals (RR, 0.20; P-score, 0.87). Nortriptyline was the most likely to be associated with withdrawals (RR, 3.33; P-score, 0.16). However, there were no significant differences between any individual drug and placebo.
Urgent need remains
More trials of drugs to treat gastroparesis are needed, Ford said.
“We need to consider the reintroduction of dopamine antagonists, if patients are willing to accept the safety concerns,” he added. “The other important point is most drugs were not of benefit. There is an urgent need to find efficacious therapies, and these should be fast-tracked for licensing approval if efficacy is proven.”
The study is “helpful for practicing clinicians since it provides a comprehensive review of clinical trials in gastroparesis,” Anthony Lembo, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.
Dr. Lembo, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched several drugs for gastroparesis, including relamorelin and TZP-102. He agreed that additional research is needed.
“There is a paucity of novel treatments currently in development,” he said. “However, there is interest in developing a product similar to domperidone without cardiac side effects, as well as performing larger studies with botulinum toxin injection.”
The authors did not disclose a funding source for the study. One author disclosed research funding from the National Institutes of Health and consulting roles with various pharmaceutical companies. Ford and the other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Lembo reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a new report.
Oral dopamine antagonists and tachykinin-1 antagonists appear superior to placebo, finds the study. In addition, some drugs rank higher for addressing individual symptoms.
“Gastroparesis has a substantial impact on quality of life and societal functioning for patients, and the costs to the health service are high,” Alexander Ford, MBChB, MD, a professor of gastroenterology and honorary consultant gastroenterologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Medical Research at St. James’s, University of Leeds, said in an interview.
“There are very few licensed therapies, but some novel drugs are in the pipeline, some existing drugs that are licensed for other conditions could be repurposed if efficacious, and some older drugs that have safety concerns may be beneficial,” he said. “Given the impact on patients and their symptoms, they may be willing to accept these safety risks in return for symptom improvement.”
Only one drug, the dopamine antagonist metoclopramide, has Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of gastroparesis, noted Dr. Ford and colleagues. The lack of other recommended drugs or new medications has resulted in off-label use of drugs in other classes.
The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
Investigating treatments
To address the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of licensed and unlicensed drugs for the condition, the researchers conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of drugs for gastroparesis dating from 1947 to September 2022. The trials involved more than dozen drugs in several classes.
They determined drug efficacy on the basis of global symptoms of gastroparesis and individual symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, or fullness. They judged safety on the basis of total adverse events and adverse events leading to withdrawal.
The research team extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses, assuming dropouts to be treatment failures. They reported efficacy as a pooled relative risk of symptoms not improving and ranked the drugs according to P-score.
The analysis included 29 randomized controlled trials with 3,772 patients. Only four trials were at low risk of bias.
Overall, only two drug classes were considered efficacious: oral dopamine antagonists (RR, 0.58; P-score, 0.96) and tachykinin-1 antagonists (RR, 0.69; P-score, 0.83).
On the basis of 25 trials that reported on global symptoms, clebopride ranked first for efficacy (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.99), followed by domperidone (RR, 0.69; P-score, 0.76). None of the other drugs were superior to the placebo. After direct and indirect comparisons, clebopride was superior to all other drugs except aprepitant.
After excluding three trials with a placebo run-in and a trial where only responders to single-blind domperidone were randomized, the researchers analyzed 21 trials with 2,233 patients. In this analysis, domperidone ranked first (RR, 0.48; P-score, 0.93), followed by oral metoclopramide (RR, 0.54; P-score, 0.87). None of the other drugs were superior to placebo.
Among 16 trials, including 1,381 patients, that confirmed delayed gastric emptying among all participants, only clebopride and metoclopramide were more efficacious than placebo. Clebopride ranked first (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.95) and metoclopramide ranked third (RR, 0.48).
Among 13 trials with 785 patients with diabetic gastroparesis, none of the active drugs were superior to placebo. Among 12 trials recruiting patients with idiopathic or mixed etiology gastroparesis, clebopride ranked first (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.93).
On the basis of trials that assessed individual symptoms, oral metoclopramide ranked first for nausea (RR, 0.46; P-score, 0.95), fullness (RR, 0.67; P-score, 0.86), and bloating (RR, 0.53; P-score, 0.97). However, the data came from one small trial. Tradipitant and TZP-102, a ghrelin agonist, were efficacious for nausea, and TZP-102 ranked second for fullness. No drugs were more efficacious than the placebo for abdominal pain or vomiting.
Among 20 trials that reported on the total number of adverse events, camicinal was the least likely to be associated with adverse events (RR, 0.77; P-score, 0.93) and prucalopride was the most likely to be associated with adverse events (RR, 2.96; P-score, 0.10). Prucalopride, oral metoclopramide, and aprepitant also were more likely than placebo to be associated with adverse events.
In 23 trials that reported on withdrawals caused by adverse events, camicinal was the least likely to be associated with withdrawals (RR, 0.20; P-score, 0.87). Nortriptyline was the most likely to be associated with withdrawals (RR, 3.33; P-score, 0.16). However, there were no significant differences between any individual drug and placebo.
Urgent need remains
More trials of drugs to treat gastroparesis are needed, Ford said.
“We need to consider the reintroduction of dopamine antagonists, if patients are willing to accept the safety concerns,” he added. “The other important point is most drugs were not of benefit. There is an urgent need to find efficacious therapies, and these should be fast-tracked for licensing approval if efficacy is proven.”
The study is “helpful for practicing clinicians since it provides a comprehensive review of clinical trials in gastroparesis,” Anthony Lembo, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.
Dr. Lembo, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched several drugs for gastroparesis, including relamorelin and TZP-102. He agreed that additional research is needed.
“There is a paucity of novel treatments currently in development,” he said. “However, there is interest in developing a product similar to domperidone without cardiac side effects, as well as performing larger studies with botulinum toxin injection.”
The authors did not disclose a funding source for the study. One author disclosed research funding from the National Institutes of Health and consulting roles with various pharmaceutical companies. Ford and the other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Lembo reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a new report.
Oral dopamine antagonists and tachykinin-1 antagonists appear superior to placebo, finds the study. In addition, some drugs rank higher for addressing individual symptoms.
“Gastroparesis has a substantial impact on quality of life and societal functioning for patients, and the costs to the health service are high,” Alexander Ford, MBChB, MD, a professor of gastroenterology and honorary consultant gastroenterologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Medical Research at St. James’s, University of Leeds, said in an interview.
“There are very few licensed therapies, but some novel drugs are in the pipeline, some existing drugs that are licensed for other conditions could be repurposed if efficacious, and some older drugs that have safety concerns may be beneficial,” he said. “Given the impact on patients and their symptoms, they may be willing to accept these safety risks in return for symptom improvement.”
Only one drug, the dopamine antagonist metoclopramide, has Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of gastroparesis, noted Dr. Ford and colleagues. The lack of other recommended drugs or new medications has resulted in off-label use of drugs in other classes.
The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
Investigating treatments
To address the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of licensed and unlicensed drugs for the condition, the researchers conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of drugs for gastroparesis dating from 1947 to September 2022. The trials involved more than dozen drugs in several classes.
They determined drug efficacy on the basis of global symptoms of gastroparesis and individual symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, or fullness. They judged safety on the basis of total adverse events and adverse events leading to withdrawal.
The research team extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses, assuming dropouts to be treatment failures. They reported efficacy as a pooled relative risk of symptoms not improving and ranked the drugs according to P-score.
The analysis included 29 randomized controlled trials with 3,772 patients. Only four trials were at low risk of bias.
Overall, only two drug classes were considered efficacious: oral dopamine antagonists (RR, 0.58; P-score, 0.96) and tachykinin-1 antagonists (RR, 0.69; P-score, 0.83).
On the basis of 25 trials that reported on global symptoms, clebopride ranked first for efficacy (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.99), followed by domperidone (RR, 0.69; P-score, 0.76). None of the other drugs were superior to the placebo. After direct and indirect comparisons, clebopride was superior to all other drugs except aprepitant.
After excluding three trials with a placebo run-in and a trial where only responders to single-blind domperidone were randomized, the researchers analyzed 21 trials with 2,233 patients. In this analysis, domperidone ranked first (RR, 0.48; P-score, 0.93), followed by oral metoclopramide (RR, 0.54; P-score, 0.87). None of the other drugs were superior to placebo.
Among 16 trials, including 1,381 patients, that confirmed delayed gastric emptying among all participants, only clebopride and metoclopramide were more efficacious than placebo. Clebopride ranked first (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.95) and metoclopramide ranked third (RR, 0.48).
Among 13 trials with 785 patients with diabetic gastroparesis, none of the active drugs were superior to placebo. Among 12 trials recruiting patients with idiopathic or mixed etiology gastroparesis, clebopride ranked first (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.93).
On the basis of trials that assessed individual symptoms, oral metoclopramide ranked first for nausea (RR, 0.46; P-score, 0.95), fullness (RR, 0.67; P-score, 0.86), and bloating (RR, 0.53; P-score, 0.97). However, the data came from one small trial. Tradipitant and TZP-102, a ghrelin agonist, were efficacious for nausea, and TZP-102 ranked second for fullness. No drugs were more efficacious than the placebo for abdominal pain or vomiting.
Among 20 trials that reported on the total number of adverse events, camicinal was the least likely to be associated with adverse events (RR, 0.77; P-score, 0.93) and prucalopride was the most likely to be associated with adverse events (RR, 2.96; P-score, 0.10). Prucalopride, oral metoclopramide, and aprepitant also were more likely than placebo to be associated with adverse events.
In 23 trials that reported on withdrawals caused by adverse events, camicinal was the least likely to be associated with withdrawals (RR, 0.20; P-score, 0.87). Nortriptyline was the most likely to be associated with withdrawals (RR, 3.33; P-score, 0.16). However, there were no significant differences between any individual drug and placebo.
Urgent need remains
More trials of drugs to treat gastroparesis are needed, Ford said.
“We need to consider the reintroduction of dopamine antagonists, if patients are willing to accept the safety concerns,” he added. “The other important point is most drugs were not of benefit. There is an urgent need to find efficacious therapies, and these should be fast-tracked for licensing approval if efficacy is proven.”
The study is “helpful for practicing clinicians since it provides a comprehensive review of clinical trials in gastroparesis,” Anthony Lembo, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.
Dr. Lembo, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched several drugs for gastroparesis, including relamorelin and TZP-102. He agreed that additional research is needed.
“There is a paucity of novel treatments currently in development,” he said. “However, there is interest in developing a product similar to domperidone without cardiac side effects, as well as performing larger studies with botulinum toxin injection.”
The authors did not disclose a funding source for the study. One author disclosed research funding from the National Institutes of Health and consulting roles with various pharmaceutical companies. Ford and the other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Lembo reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Powering down cellphone use in middle schools
As vice principal of Pennsville Middle School in New Jersey, Adam J. Slusher knows he’s not always going to be Mr. Popularity.
Part of a vice principal’s job includes scheduling, enforcing policy, and discipline, so Dr. Slusher – who holds a doctorate in education from Wilmington University in Delaware – sometimes has to send emails or make phone calls that address unpleasant topics or unpopular new policies.
Or punishments.
But there was a much different reaction this past July, after he sent a message to the homes of Pennsville’s 450 students spanning grades 6 to 8. The email blast announced a new cellphone policy for the school. Starting in September, as he explained in the message – which also went out to the school’s 60 faculty and staff members – the use of cellphones by Pennsville students would be prohibited during school hours for any reason.
Phones, he emphasized, “are to be turned OFF” and stowed away in backpacks or handbags, not carried or tucked into back pockets.
The announcement of the new Away for the Day policy, which was decided upon by Dr. Slusher and Pennsville Principal Carolyn Carels, provoked a response different from those to his announcements on, say, test dates, emergency procedures, or new detention policies.
“It was one of the most popular emails I’ve ever sent,” chuckled Dr. Slusher, who has been an educator for 17 years. “We’ve gotten so many thanks from teachers for this.”
Ditto with the staff, who in conversations with Dr. Slusher and Ms. Carels, had reported on the rampant use of phones in the cafeteria and hallways – confirming what both of them had seen.
“They were telling us, ‘You’ve got to do something about the phones’ ” he recalled. “They were delighted that a clear policy was now going to be in place.”
The overwhelming majority of Pennsville parents have also supported the new policy, especially when presented with some of the sobering evidence about the extent of phone use among this population. One study Dr. Slusher cited in his email showed that the average middle school child is spending between 6 and 9 hours a day on screens.
“That’s like a full-time job,” he said.
The heavy cellphone use by kids – in school, out of school, anywhere and everywhere – was part of what prompted internal medicine doctor and filmmaker Delaney Ruston, MD, to create the “Away for the Day” initiative, which Pennsville has adopted.
She and collaborator Lisa Tabb were driven to do “Away for the Day” while working on Screenagers, their award-winning 2016 film examining the impact of social media, videos, and screen time on youngsters and their families that also offered tips for better navigating the digital world.
“Over 3 years of making the film, I was visiting schools all over the country,” Dr. Ruston said. “By the end, I was seeing devices all over the place, even in elementary schools. When I’d ask a student in the hall, ‘What’s the policy?’ they would shrug and say ‘I don’t know.’ When I got the same reaction from teachers – who in many cases were left to decide on their own, so that they had to be the bad guys – I realized there was a problem here.”
The result was what Dr. Ruston and Ms. Tabb describe on their website as a “movement,” designed to provide tools to parents, teachers, and administrators to help them make policies that put phones away during the school day.
The age of social centrality
As even a casual glance in the homeroom of every high school or college lecture hall will confirm, phone use is high in teenagers and young adults. But Dr. Ruston and Ms. Tabb decided to focus on middle schools.
“That’s the age where we know schools are facing the most challenges,” Dr. Ruston said. “This is also the age when social centrality becomes a major focus for youth. Thus, the pull to be on social media games, where their peers are, is incredibly enticing.”
A recent study in the journal JAMA Pediatrics found that middle schoolers who compulsively check social networks on their phones appear to have changes in areas of the brain linked to reward and punishment.
It was in middle schools, she concluded, “where effective policies on cellphones are most needed.”
As part of their research into the issue, she and ms. Tabb did a survey using email contacts collected by Dr. Ruston’s company, MyDoc Productions, during the making of the film, along with subscribers to her blog. In all, 1,200 parents – each of whom had at least one child in middle school at the time – were surveyed. The researchers found an interesting disconnect: Eighty-two percent of the parents surveyed did not want their children using phones in school. Yet 55% of middle schools allowed students to carry phones during the school day.
That survey was done in 2017. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of cellphones by children, both in school and at home, has risen dramatically. A literature review of 46 studies, published in JAMA Pediatrics in November, found that average screen time among children and adolescents has increased by 52% – or 84 minutes a day – during the pandemic.
That trend has given many schools, including Pennsville, the drive to adopt an Away for the Day–type policy. As part of the program, Dr. Ruston’s website provides ammunition against the kinds of pushback they might expect to get. One of the most common is the idea that banning cellphone use among middle school children is a misguided, antitechnology measure.
“We’re not at all antitech,” Dr. Ruston asserts. Away for the Day, she explains, advocates the use of learning technologies in school that are monitored and supervised by teachers.
“The majority of students have access to learning devices in the school,” she said. “These have different kinds of blockers, making it harder for their kid to respond to their friend on TikTok when they’re supposed to be using technology for learning.”
Dr. Ruston estimates that about 10,000 middle schools are now using various pieces of the Away for the Day campaign, which includes videos, posters, fact sheets, and other materials. Other schools have adopted similar measures in the same spirit.
Predictable and calm? Not so much
When Katherine Holden was named principal of Oregon’s Talent Middle School in 2022, one of the first things she wanted to do was create some structure for the routines of students (and parents) who were frazzled after 2 years of remote learning, staggered schedules, and mask mandates.
“Predictable and calm,” she said, with a laugh. “I use those words every day.”
Achieving both is hard enough in a middle school without a pandemic – not to mention an epidemic of cellphone use. (Talent also endured a massive fire in 2020 that left many families homeless.)
For this school year, Ms. Holden is using a new and clearly articulated policy: “Devices are put away from the first bell to the last bell,” she said. “We want them to have a focus on other things. We want them to be socializing, interacting with their peers face to face, thinking about getting to class. We want them making eye contact, asking questions. Learning how to make a friend face to face. Those are important developmental social skills they should be practicing.”
Instead of scrolling through photos on Instagram, watching trending videos on TikTok, or texting their friends.
Like Dr. Slusher, she announced the new cellphone policy last summer, in a letter sent home to parents along with the list of school supplies their children would need.
“Students are welcome to use their cell phones and personal devices before entering the building prior to 8:30 a.m. and after exiting the school building at 3:10 p.m.,” she wrote. “However, during the school day students’ cellphones and personal devices need to be off and out of sight.
“I think parents generally understand the need for this,” Ms. Holden said. “They’ve watched their children getting distracted at home by these devices, so they have a sense of how a cellphone adds a layer of challenge to learning. And parents are aware of the unkind behavior that often happens online.”
As for the kids themselves? Safe to say the excitement that Dr. Slusher’s email got from Pennsville faculty, staff, and parents didn’t extend to students.
“They don’t like it all, to be honest,” he said. “But they understand it’s for their benefit. When we sold it to them at our beginning-of-the-year meeting, we presented our rationale. From the kids I speak to, I think the majority understand why we’re doing it.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
As vice principal of Pennsville Middle School in New Jersey, Adam J. Slusher knows he’s not always going to be Mr. Popularity.
Part of a vice principal’s job includes scheduling, enforcing policy, and discipline, so Dr. Slusher – who holds a doctorate in education from Wilmington University in Delaware – sometimes has to send emails or make phone calls that address unpleasant topics or unpopular new policies.
Or punishments.
But there was a much different reaction this past July, after he sent a message to the homes of Pennsville’s 450 students spanning grades 6 to 8. The email blast announced a new cellphone policy for the school. Starting in September, as he explained in the message – which also went out to the school’s 60 faculty and staff members – the use of cellphones by Pennsville students would be prohibited during school hours for any reason.
Phones, he emphasized, “are to be turned OFF” and stowed away in backpacks or handbags, not carried or tucked into back pockets.
The announcement of the new Away for the Day policy, which was decided upon by Dr. Slusher and Pennsville Principal Carolyn Carels, provoked a response different from those to his announcements on, say, test dates, emergency procedures, or new detention policies.
“It was one of the most popular emails I’ve ever sent,” chuckled Dr. Slusher, who has been an educator for 17 years. “We’ve gotten so many thanks from teachers for this.”
Ditto with the staff, who in conversations with Dr. Slusher and Ms. Carels, had reported on the rampant use of phones in the cafeteria and hallways – confirming what both of them had seen.
“They were telling us, ‘You’ve got to do something about the phones’ ” he recalled. “They were delighted that a clear policy was now going to be in place.”
The overwhelming majority of Pennsville parents have also supported the new policy, especially when presented with some of the sobering evidence about the extent of phone use among this population. One study Dr. Slusher cited in his email showed that the average middle school child is spending between 6 and 9 hours a day on screens.
“That’s like a full-time job,” he said.
The heavy cellphone use by kids – in school, out of school, anywhere and everywhere – was part of what prompted internal medicine doctor and filmmaker Delaney Ruston, MD, to create the “Away for the Day” initiative, which Pennsville has adopted.
She and collaborator Lisa Tabb were driven to do “Away for the Day” while working on Screenagers, their award-winning 2016 film examining the impact of social media, videos, and screen time on youngsters and their families that also offered tips for better navigating the digital world.
“Over 3 years of making the film, I was visiting schools all over the country,” Dr. Ruston said. “By the end, I was seeing devices all over the place, even in elementary schools. When I’d ask a student in the hall, ‘What’s the policy?’ they would shrug and say ‘I don’t know.’ When I got the same reaction from teachers – who in many cases were left to decide on their own, so that they had to be the bad guys – I realized there was a problem here.”
The result was what Dr. Ruston and Ms. Tabb describe on their website as a “movement,” designed to provide tools to parents, teachers, and administrators to help them make policies that put phones away during the school day.
The age of social centrality
As even a casual glance in the homeroom of every high school or college lecture hall will confirm, phone use is high in teenagers and young adults. But Dr. Ruston and Ms. Tabb decided to focus on middle schools.
“That’s the age where we know schools are facing the most challenges,” Dr. Ruston said. “This is also the age when social centrality becomes a major focus for youth. Thus, the pull to be on social media games, where their peers are, is incredibly enticing.”
A recent study in the journal JAMA Pediatrics found that middle schoolers who compulsively check social networks on their phones appear to have changes in areas of the brain linked to reward and punishment.
It was in middle schools, she concluded, “where effective policies on cellphones are most needed.”
As part of their research into the issue, she and ms. Tabb did a survey using email contacts collected by Dr. Ruston’s company, MyDoc Productions, during the making of the film, along with subscribers to her blog. In all, 1,200 parents – each of whom had at least one child in middle school at the time – were surveyed. The researchers found an interesting disconnect: Eighty-two percent of the parents surveyed did not want their children using phones in school. Yet 55% of middle schools allowed students to carry phones during the school day.
That survey was done in 2017. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of cellphones by children, both in school and at home, has risen dramatically. A literature review of 46 studies, published in JAMA Pediatrics in November, found that average screen time among children and adolescents has increased by 52% – or 84 minutes a day – during the pandemic.
That trend has given many schools, including Pennsville, the drive to adopt an Away for the Day–type policy. As part of the program, Dr. Ruston’s website provides ammunition against the kinds of pushback they might expect to get. One of the most common is the idea that banning cellphone use among middle school children is a misguided, antitechnology measure.
“We’re not at all antitech,” Dr. Ruston asserts. Away for the Day, she explains, advocates the use of learning technologies in school that are monitored and supervised by teachers.
“The majority of students have access to learning devices in the school,” she said. “These have different kinds of blockers, making it harder for their kid to respond to their friend on TikTok when they’re supposed to be using technology for learning.”
Dr. Ruston estimates that about 10,000 middle schools are now using various pieces of the Away for the Day campaign, which includes videos, posters, fact sheets, and other materials. Other schools have adopted similar measures in the same spirit.
Predictable and calm? Not so much
When Katherine Holden was named principal of Oregon’s Talent Middle School in 2022, one of the first things she wanted to do was create some structure for the routines of students (and parents) who were frazzled after 2 years of remote learning, staggered schedules, and mask mandates.
“Predictable and calm,” she said, with a laugh. “I use those words every day.”
Achieving both is hard enough in a middle school without a pandemic – not to mention an epidemic of cellphone use. (Talent also endured a massive fire in 2020 that left many families homeless.)
For this school year, Ms. Holden is using a new and clearly articulated policy: “Devices are put away from the first bell to the last bell,” she said. “We want them to have a focus on other things. We want them to be socializing, interacting with their peers face to face, thinking about getting to class. We want them making eye contact, asking questions. Learning how to make a friend face to face. Those are important developmental social skills they should be practicing.”
Instead of scrolling through photos on Instagram, watching trending videos on TikTok, or texting their friends.
Like Dr. Slusher, she announced the new cellphone policy last summer, in a letter sent home to parents along with the list of school supplies their children would need.
“Students are welcome to use their cell phones and personal devices before entering the building prior to 8:30 a.m. and after exiting the school building at 3:10 p.m.,” she wrote. “However, during the school day students’ cellphones and personal devices need to be off and out of sight.
“I think parents generally understand the need for this,” Ms. Holden said. “They’ve watched their children getting distracted at home by these devices, so they have a sense of how a cellphone adds a layer of challenge to learning. And parents are aware of the unkind behavior that often happens online.”
As for the kids themselves? Safe to say the excitement that Dr. Slusher’s email got from Pennsville faculty, staff, and parents didn’t extend to students.
“They don’t like it all, to be honest,” he said. “But they understand it’s for their benefit. When we sold it to them at our beginning-of-the-year meeting, we presented our rationale. From the kids I speak to, I think the majority understand why we’re doing it.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
As vice principal of Pennsville Middle School in New Jersey, Adam J. Slusher knows he’s not always going to be Mr. Popularity.
Part of a vice principal’s job includes scheduling, enforcing policy, and discipline, so Dr. Slusher – who holds a doctorate in education from Wilmington University in Delaware – sometimes has to send emails or make phone calls that address unpleasant topics or unpopular new policies.
Or punishments.
But there was a much different reaction this past July, after he sent a message to the homes of Pennsville’s 450 students spanning grades 6 to 8. The email blast announced a new cellphone policy for the school. Starting in September, as he explained in the message – which also went out to the school’s 60 faculty and staff members – the use of cellphones by Pennsville students would be prohibited during school hours for any reason.
Phones, he emphasized, “are to be turned OFF” and stowed away in backpacks or handbags, not carried or tucked into back pockets.
The announcement of the new Away for the Day policy, which was decided upon by Dr. Slusher and Pennsville Principal Carolyn Carels, provoked a response different from those to his announcements on, say, test dates, emergency procedures, or new detention policies.
“It was one of the most popular emails I’ve ever sent,” chuckled Dr. Slusher, who has been an educator for 17 years. “We’ve gotten so many thanks from teachers for this.”
Ditto with the staff, who in conversations with Dr. Slusher and Ms. Carels, had reported on the rampant use of phones in the cafeteria and hallways – confirming what both of them had seen.
“They were telling us, ‘You’ve got to do something about the phones’ ” he recalled. “They were delighted that a clear policy was now going to be in place.”
The overwhelming majority of Pennsville parents have also supported the new policy, especially when presented with some of the sobering evidence about the extent of phone use among this population. One study Dr. Slusher cited in his email showed that the average middle school child is spending between 6 and 9 hours a day on screens.
“That’s like a full-time job,” he said.
The heavy cellphone use by kids – in school, out of school, anywhere and everywhere – was part of what prompted internal medicine doctor and filmmaker Delaney Ruston, MD, to create the “Away for the Day” initiative, which Pennsville has adopted.
She and collaborator Lisa Tabb were driven to do “Away for the Day” while working on Screenagers, their award-winning 2016 film examining the impact of social media, videos, and screen time on youngsters and their families that also offered tips for better navigating the digital world.
“Over 3 years of making the film, I was visiting schools all over the country,” Dr. Ruston said. “By the end, I was seeing devices all over the place, even in elementary schools. When I’d ask a student in the hall, ‘What’s the policy?’ they would shrug and say ‘I don’t know.’ When I got the same reaction from teachers – who in many cases were left to decide on their own, so that they had to be the bad guys – I realized there was a problem here.”
The result was what Dr. Ruston and Ms. Tabb describe on their website as a “movement,” designed to provide tools to parents, teachers, and administrators to help them make policies that put phones away during the school day.
The age of social centrality
As even a casual glance in the homeroom of every high school or college lecture hall will confirm, phone use is high in teenagers and young adults. But Dr. Ruston and Ms. Tabb decided to focus on middle schools.
“That’s the age where we know schools are facing the most challenges,” Dr. Ruston said. “This is also the age when social centrality becomes a major focus for youth. Thus, the pull to be on social media games, where their peers are, is incredibly enticing.”
A recent study in the journal JAMA Pediatrics found that middle schoolers who compulsively check social networks on their phones appear to have changes in areas of the brain linked to reward and punishment.
It was in middle schools, she concluded, “where effective policies on cellphones are most needed.”
As part of their research into the issue, she and ms. Tabb did a survey using email contacts collected by Dr. Ruston’s company, MyDoc Productions, during the making of the film, along with subscribers to her blog. In all, 1,200 parents – each of whom had at least one child in middle school at the time – were surveyed. The researchers found an interesting disconnect: Eighty-two percent of the parents surveyed did not want their children using phones in school. Yet 55% of middle schools allowed students to carry phones during the school day.
That survey was done in 2017. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of cellphones by children, both in school and at home, has risen dramatically. A literature review of 46 studies, published in JAMA Pediatrics in November, found that average screen time among children and adolescents has increased by 52% – or 84 minutes a day – during the pandemic.
That trend has given many schools, including Pennsville, the drive to adopt an Away for the Day–type policy. As part of the program, Dr. Ruston’s website provides ammunition against the kinds of pushback they might expect to get. One of the most common is the idea that banning cellphone use among middle school children is a misguided, antitechnology measure.
“We’re not at all antitech,” Dr. Ruston asserts. Away for the Day, she explains, advocates the use of learning technologies in school that are monitored and supervised by teachers.
“The majority of students have access to learning devices in the school,” she said. “These have different kinds of blockers, making it harder for their kid to respond to their friend on TikTok when they’re supposed to be using technology for learning.”
Dr. Ruston estimates that about 10,000 middle schools are now using various pieces of the Away for the Day campaign, which includes videos, posters, fact sheets, and other materials. Other schools have adopted similar measures in the same spirit.
Predictable and calm? Not so much
When Katherine Holden was named principal of Oregon’s Talent Middle School in 2022, one of the first things she wanted to do was create some structure for the routines of students (and parents) who were frazzled after 2 years of remote learning, staggered schedules, and mask mandates.
“Predictable and calm,” she said, with a laugh. “I use those words every day.”
Achieving both is hard enough in a middle school without a pandemic – not to mention an epidemic of cellphone use. (Talent also endured a massive fire in 2020 that left many families homeless.)
For this school year, Ms. Holden is using a new and clearly articulated policy: “Devices are put away from the first bell to the last bell,” she said. “We want them to have a focus on other things. We want them to be socializing, interacting with their peers face to face, thinking about getting to class. We want them making eye contact, asking questions. Learning how to make a friend face to face. Those are important developmental social skills they should be practicing.”
Instead of scrolling through photos on Instagram, watching trending videos on TikTok, or texting their friends.
Like Dr. Slusher, she announced the new cellphone policy last summer, in a letter sent home to parents along with the list of school supplies their children would need.
“Students are welcome to use their cell phones and personal devices before entering the building prior to 8:30 a.m. and after exiting the school building at 3:10 p.m.,” she wrote. “However, during the school day students’ cellphones and personal devices need to be off and out of sight.
“I think parents generally understand the need for this,” Ms. Holden said. “They’ve watched their children getting distracted at home by these devices, so they have a sense of how a cellphone adds a layer of challenge to learning. And parents are aware of the unkind behavior that often happens online.”
As for the kids themselves? Safe to say the excitement that Dr. Slusher’s email got from Pennsville faculty, staff, and parents didn’t extend to students.
“They don’t like it all, to be honest,” he said. “But they understand it’s for their benefit. When we sold it to them at our beginning-of-the-year meeting, we presented our rationale. From the kids I speak to, I think the majority understand why we’re doing it.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Starting a podcast
In my last column, I discussed . At this writing (November 2022), more than 600 million blogs are online, compared with about 2 million podcasts, and relatively few of them are run by physicians. With podcasts, you have a better chance of standing out in a crowded online world.
Starting a podcast is not difficult, but there are several steps you need to go through before launching one.
As with blogging, start by outlining a long-range plan. Your general topic will probably be your specialty, but you will need to narrow your focus to a few specific subjects, such as the problems you see most often, or a subspecialty that you concentrate on. You can always expand your topic later, as you get more popular. Choose a name for your podcast, and purchase a domain name that accurately describes it.
You will also need to choose a hosting service. Numerous inexpensive hosting platforms are available, and a simple Google search will find them for you. Many of them provide free learning materials, helpful creative tools, and customer support to get you through the confusing technical aspects. They can also help you choose a music introduction (to add a bit of polish), and help you piece together your audio segments. Buzzsprout, RSS.com, and Podbean get good reviews on many sites. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or service mentioned herein.)
Hosting services can assist you in creating a template – a framework that you can reuse each time you record an episode – containing your intro and exit music, tracks for your conversations, etc. This will make your podcasts instantly recognizable each time your listeners tune in.
Many podcasting experts recommend recruiting a co-host. This can be an associate within your practice, a friend who practices elsewhere, or perhaps a resident in an academic setting. You will be able to spread the workload of creating, editing, and promoting. Plus, it is much easier to generate interesting content when two people are having a conversation, rather than one person lecturing from a prepared script. You might also consider having multiple co-hosts, either to expand episodes into group discussions, or to take turns working with you in covering different subjects.
How long you make your podcast is entirely up to you. Some consultants recommend specific time frames, such as 5 minutes (because that’s an average attention span), or 28 minutes (because that’s the average driving commute time). There are short podcasts and long ones; whatever works for you is fine, as long as you don’t drift off the topic. Furthermore, no one says they must all be the same length; when you are finished talking, you are done. And no one says you must stick with one subject throughout. Combining several short segments might hold more listeners’ interest and will make it easier to share small clips on social media.
Content guidelines are similar to those for blogs. Give people content that will be of interest or benefit to them. Talk about subjects – medical and otherwise – that are relevant to your practice or are prominent in the news.
As with blogs, try to avoid polarizing political discussions, and while it’s fine to discuss treatments and procedures that you offer, aggressive solicitation tends to make viewers look elsewhere. Keep any medical advice in general terms; don’t portray any specific patients as examples.
When your podcast is ready, your hosting platform will show you how to submit it to iTunes, and how to submit your podcast RSS feed to other podcast directories. As you upload new episodes, your host will automatically update your RSS feed, so that any directory you are listed on will receive the new episode.
Once you are uploaded, you can use your host’s social sharing tools to spread the word. As with blogs, use social media, such as your practice’s Facebook page, to push podcast updates into patients’ feeds and track relevant Twitter hashtags to find online communities that might be interested in your subject matter. You should also find your episode embed code (which your host will have) and place it in a prominent place on your website so patients can listen directly from there.
Transcriptions are another excellent promotional tool. Search engines will “read” your podcasts and list them in searches. Some podcast hosts will do transcribing for a fee, but there are independent transcription services as well.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
In my last column, I discussed . At this writing (November 2022), more than 600 million blogs are online, compared with about 2 million podcasts, and relatively few of them are run by physicians. With podcasts, you have a better chance of standing out in a crowded online world.
Starting a podcast is not difficult, but there are several steps you need to go through before launching one.
As with blogging, start by outlining a long-range plan. Your general topic will probably be your specialty, but you will need to narrow your focus to a few specific subjects, such as the problems you see most often, or a subspecialty that you concentrate on. You can always expand your topic later, as you get more popular. Choose a name for your podcast, and purchase a domain name that accurately describes it.
You will also need to choose a hosting service. Numerous inexpensive hosting platforms are available, and a simple Google search will find them for you. Many of them provide free learning materials, helpful creative tools, and customer support to get you through the confusing technical aspects. They can also help you choose a music introduction (to add a bit of polish), and help you piece together your audio segments. Buzzsprout, RSS.com, and Podbean get good reviews on many sites. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or service mentioned herein.)
Hosting services can assist you in creating a template – a framework that you can reuse each time you record an episode – containing your intro and exit music, tracks for your conversations, etc. This will make your podcasts instantly recognizable each time your listeners tune in.
Many podcasting experts recommend recruiting a co-host. This can be an associate within your practice, a friend who practices elsewhere, or perhaps a resident in an academic setting. You will be able to spread the workload of creating, editing, and promoting. Plus, it is much easier to generate interesting content when two people are having a conversation, rather than one person lecturing from a prepared script. You might also consider having multiple co-hosts, either to expand episodes into group discussions, or to take turns working with you in covering different subjects.
How long you make your podcast is entirely up to you. Some consultants recommend specific time frames, such as 5 minutes (because that’s an average attention span), or 28 minutes (because that’s the average driving commute time). There are short podcasts and long ones; whatever works for you is fine, as long as you don’t drift off the topic. Furthermore, no one says they must all be the same length; when you are finished talking, you are done. And no one says you must stick with one subject throughout. Combining several short segments might hold more listeners’ interest and will make it easier to share small clips on social media.
Content guidelines are similar to those for blogs. Give people content that will be of interest or benefit to them. Talk about subjects – medical and otherwise – that are relevant to your practice or are prominent in the news.
As with blogs, try to avoid polarizing political discussions, and while it’s fine to discuss treatments and procedures that you offer, aggressive solicitation tends to make viewers look elsewhere. Keep any medical advice in general terms; don’t portray any specific patients as examples.
When your podcast is ready, your hosting platform will show you how to submit it to iTunes, and how to submit your podcast RSS feed to other podcast directories. As you upload new episodes, your host will automatically update your RSS feed, so that any directory you are listed on will receive the new episode.
Once you are uploaded, you can use your host’s social sharing tools to spread the word. As with blogs, use social media, such as your practice’s Facebook page, to push podcast updates into patients’ feeds and track relevant Twitter hashtags to find online communities that might be interested in your subject matter. You should also find your episode embed code (which your host will have) and place it in a prominent place on your website so patients can listen directly from there.
Transcriptions are another excellent promotional tool. Search engines will “read” your podcasts and list them in searches. Some podcast hosts will do transcribing for a fee, but there are independent transcription services as well.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
In my last column, I discussed . At this writing (November 2022), more than 600 million blogs are online, compared with about 2 million podcasts, and relatively few of them are run by physicians. With podcasts, you have a better chance of standing out in a crowded online world.
Starting a podcast is not difficult, but there are several steps you need to go through before launching one.
As with blogging, start by outlining a long-range plan. Your general topic will probably be your specialty, but you will need to narrow your focus to a few specific subjects, such as the problems you see most often, or a subspecialty that you concentrate on. You can always expand your topic later, as you get more popular. Choose a name for your podcast, and purchase a domain name that accurately describes it.
You will also need to choose a hosting service. Numerous inexpensive hosting platforms are available, and a simple Google search will find them for you. Many of them provide free learning materials, helpful creative tools, and customer support to get you through the confusing technical aspects. They can also help you choose a music introduction (to add a bit of polish), and help you piece together your audio segments. Buzzsprout, RSS.com, and Podbean get good reviews on many sites. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or service mentioned herein.)
Hosting services can assist you in creating a template – a framework that you can reuse each time you record an episode – containing your intro and exit music, tracks for your conversations, etc. This will make your podcasts instantly recognizable each time your listeners tune in.
Many podcasting experts recommend recruiting a co-host. This can be an associate within your practice, a friend who practices elsewhere, or perhaps a resident in an academic setting. You will be able to spread the workload of creating, editing, and promoting. Plus, it is much easier to generate interesting content when two people are having a conversation, rather than one person lecturing from a prepared script. You might also consider having multiple co-hosts, either to expand episodes into group discussions, or to take turns working with you in covering different subjects.
How long you make your podcast is entirely up to you. Some consultants recommend specific time frames, such as 5 minutes (because that’s an average attention span), or 28 minutes (because that’s the average driving commute time). There are short podcasts and long ones; whatever works for you is fine, as long as you don’t drift off the topic. Furthermore, no one says they must all be the same length; when you are finished talking, you are done. And no one says you must stick with one subject throughout. Combining several short segments might hold more listeners’ interest and will make it easier to share small clips on social media.
Content guidelines are similar to those for blogs. Give people content that will be of interest or benefit to them. Talk about subjects – medical and otherwise – that are relevant to your practice or are prominent in the news.
As with blogs, try to avoid polarizing political discussions, and while it’s fine to discuss treatments and procedures that you offer, aggressive solicitation tends to make viewers look elsewhere. Keep any medical advice in general terms; don’t portray any specific patients as examples.
When your podcast is ready, your hosting platform will show you how to submit it to iTunes, and how to submit your podcast RSS feed to other podcast directories. As you upload new episodes, your host will automatically update your RSS feed, so that any directory you are listed on will receive the new episode.
Once you are uploaded, you can use your host’s social sharing tools to spread the word. As with blogs, use social media, such as your practice’s Facebook page, to push podcast updates into patients’ feeds and track relevant Twitter hashtags to find online communities that might be interested in your subject matter. You should also find your episode embed code (which your host will have) and place it in a prominent place on your website so patients can listen directly from there.
Transcriptions are another excellent promotional tool. Search engines will “read” your podcasts and list them in searches. Some podcast hosts will do transcribing for a fee, but there are independent transcription services as well.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
New Parkinson’s test developed thanks to woman who could smell the disease
The test has been years in the making after academics realized that Joy Milne could smell the condition.
The 72-year-old from Perth, Scotland, has a rare condition that gives her a heightened sense of smell.
She noticed that her late husband Les developed a different odor when he was 33 – some 12 years before he was diagnosed with the disease, which leads to parts of the brain become progressively damaged over many years.
Mrs. Milne, dubbed ‘the woman who can smell Parkinson’s, described a “musky” aroma, different from his normal scent.
Her observation piqued the interest of scientists who decided to research what she could smell, and whether this could be harnessed to help identify people with the neurological condition.
‘Early phases of research’
Years later, academics at the University of Manchester (England) have made a breakthrough by developing a test that can identify people with Parkinson’s disease using a simple cotton bud run along the back of the neck.
Researchers can examine the sample to identify molecules linked to the disease to help diagnose whether someone has the disease.
While still in the early phases of research, scientists are excited about the prospect of the NHS being able to deploy a simple test for the disease.
There is currently no definitive test for Parkinson’s disease, with diagnosis based on a patient’s symptoms and medical history.
If the new skin swab is successful outside laboratory conditions it could be rolled out to achieve faster diagnosis.
Mrs. Milne told the PA news agency that it was “not acceptable” that people with Parkinson’s had such high degrees of neurologic damage at the time of diagnosis, adding: “I think it has to be detected far earlier – the same as cancer and diabetes, earlier diagnosis means far more efficient treatment and a better lifestyle for people.
“It has been found that exercise and change of diet can make a phenomenal difference.”
She said her husband, a former doctor, was “determined” to find the right researcher to examine the link between odor and Parkinson’s and they sought out Tilo Kunath, PhD, at the University of Edinburgh in 2012.
Chemical change in sebum
Dr. Kunath paired up with Perdita Barran, PhD, to examine Mrs. Milne’s sense of smell.
The scientists believed that the scent may be caused by a chemical change in skin oil, known as sebum, that is triggered by the disease.
In their preliminary work they asked Mrs. Milne to smell t-shirts worn by people who have Parkinson’s and those who did not.
Mrs. Milne correctly identified the t-shirts worn by Parkinson’s patients but she also said that one from the group of people without Parkinson’s smelled like the disease – 8 months later the individual who wore the t-shirt was diagnosed with Parkinson’s.
Researchers hoped the finding could lead to a test being developed to detect Parkinson’s, working under the assumption that if they were able to identify a unique chemical signature in the skin linked to Parkinson’s, they may eventually be able to diagnose the condition from simple skin swabs.
In 2019 researchers at the University of Manchester, led by Dr. Barran, announced that they had identified molecules linked to the disease found in skin swabs.
And now the scientists have developed a test using this information.
The tests have been successfully conducted in research labs and now scientists are assessing whether they can be used in hospital settings.
If successful, the test could potentially be used in the NHS so GPs can refer patients for Parkinson’s tests.
The findings, which have been published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, detail how sebum can be analyzed with mass spectrometry – a method which weighs molecules – to identify the disease.
Some molecules are present only in people who have Parkinson’s disease.
Researchers compared swabs from 79 people with Parkinson’s with a healthy control group of 71 people.
Dr. Barran told the PA news agency: “At the moment, there are no cures for Parkinson’s, but a confirmatory diagnostic would allow them to get the right treatment and get the drugs that will help to alleviate their symptoms.
“There would also be nonpharmaceutical interventions, including movement and also nutritional classes, which can really help.
“And I think most critically, it will allow them to have a confirmed diagnosis to actually know what’s wrong with them.”
She added: “What we are now doing is seeing if [hospital laboratories] can do what we’ve done in a research lab in a hospital lab. Once that’s happened then we want to see if we can make this a confirmatory diagnostic that could be used along with the referral process from a GP to a consultant. At the moment in Greater Manchester there are about 18,000 people waiting for a neurological consult and just to clear that list, without any new people joining it, will take up to 2 years. Of those 10%-15% are suspect Parkinson’s. Our test would be able to tell them whether they did or whether they didn’t [have Parkinson’s] and allow them to be referred to the right specialist. So at the moment, we’re talking about being able to refer people in a timely manner to the right specialism and that will be transformative.”
Mrs. Milne may be able to smell other diseases
Mrs. Milne is now working with scientists around the world to see if she can smell other diseases like cancer and tuberculosis.
“I have to go shopping very early or very late because of people’s perfumes, I can’t go into the chemical aisle in the supermarket,” she told the PA news agency. “So yes, a curse sometimes but I have also been out to Tanzania and have done research on TB, and research on cancer in the U.S. – just preliminary work. So it is a curse and a benefit.”
She said that she can sometimes smell people who have Parkinson’s while in the supermarket or walking down the street but has been told by medical ethicists she cannot tell them. “Which GP would accept a man or a woman walking in saying ‘the woman who smells Parkinson’s has told me I have it?’ Maybe in the future but not now.”
Mrs. Milne said that her husband, who died 7 years ago, was like a “changed man” after researchers found the link between Parkinson’s and odor.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
The test has been years in the making after academics realized that Joy Milne could smell the condition.
The 72-year-old from Perth, Scotland, has a rare condition that gives her a heightened sense of smell.
She noticed that her late husband Les developed a different odor when he was 33 – some 12 years before he was diagnosed with the disease, which leads to parts of the brain become progressively damaged over many years.
Mrs. Milne, dubbed ‘the woman who can smell Parkinson’s, described a “musky” aroma, different from his normal scent.
Her observation piqued the interest of scientists who decided to research what she could smell, and whether this could be harnessed to help identify people with the neurological condition.
‘Early phases of research’
Years later, academics at the University of Manchester (England) have made a breakthrough by developing a test that can identify people with Parkinson’s disease using a simple cotton bud run along the back of the neck.
Researchers can examine the sample to identify molecules linked to the disease to help diagnose whether someone has the disease.
While still in the early phases of research, scientists are excited about the prospect of the NHS being able to deploy a simple test for the disease.
There is currently no definitive test for Parkinson’s disease, with diagnosis based on a patient’s symptoms and medical history.
If the new skin swab is successful outside laboratory conditions it could be rolled out to achieve faster diagnosis.
Mrs. Milne told the PA news agency that it was “not acceptable” that people with Parkinson’s had such high degrees of neurologic damage at the time of diagnosis, adding: “I think it has to be detected far earlier – the same as cancer and diabetes, earlier diagnosis means far more efficient treatment and a better lifestyle for people.
“It has been found that exercise and change of diet can make a phenomenal difference.”
She said her husband, a former doctor, was “determined” to find the right researcher to examine the link between odor and Parkinson’s and they sought out Tilo Kunath, PhD, at the University of Edinburgh in 2012.
Chemical change in sebum
Dr. Kunath paired up with Perdita Barran, PhD, to examine Mrs. Milne’s sense of smell.
The scientists believed that the scent may be caused by a chemical change in skin oil, known as sebum, that is triggered by the disease.
In their preliminary work they asked Mrs. Milne to smell t-shirts worn by people who have Parkinson’s and those who did not.
Mrs. Milne correctly identified the t-shirts worn by Parkinson’s patients but she also said that one from the group of people without Parkinson’s smelled like the disease – 8 months later the individual who wore the t-shirt was diagnosed with Parkinson’s.
Researchers hoped the finding could lead to a test being developed to detect Parkinson’s, working under the assumption that if they were able to identify a unique chemical signature in the skin linked to Parkinson’s, they may eventually be able to diagnose the condition from simple skin swabs.
In 2019 researchers at the University of Manchester, led by Dr. Barran, announced that they had identified molecules linked to the disease found in skin swabs.
And now the scientists have developed a test using this information.
The tests have been successfully conducted in research labs and now scientists are assessing whether they can be used in hospital settings.
If successful, the test could potentially be used in the NHS so GPs can refer patients for Parkinson’s tests.
The findings, which have been published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, detail how sebum can be analyzed with mass spectrometry – a method which weighs molecules – to identify the disease.
Some molecules are present only in people who have Parkinson’s disease.
Researchers compared swabs from 79 people with Parkinson’s with a healthy control group of 71 people.
Dr. Barran told the PA news agency: “At the moment, there are no cures for Parkinson’s, but a confirmatory diagnostic would allow them to get the right treatment and get the drugs that will help to alleviate their symptoms.
“There would also be nonpharmaceutical interventions, including movement and also nutritional classes, which can really help.
“And I think most critically, it will allow them to have a confirmed diagnosis to actually know what’s wrong with them.”
She added: “What we are now doing is seeing if [hospital laboratories] can do what we’ve done in a research lab in a hospital lab. Once that’s happened then we want to see if we can make this a confirmatory diagnostic that could be used along with the referral process from a GP to a consultant. At the moment in Greater Manchester there are about 18,000 people waiting for a neurological consult and just to clear that list, without any new people joining it, will take up to 2 years. Of those 10%-15% are suspect Parkinson’s. Our test would be able to tell them whether they did or whether they didn’t [have Parkinson’s] and allow them to be referred to the right specialist. So at the moment, we’re talking about being able to refer people in a timely manner to the right specialism and that will be transformative.”
Mrs. Milne may be able to smell other diseases
Mrs. Milne is now working with scientists around the world to see if she can smell other diseases like cancer and tuberculosis.
“I have to go shopping very early or very late because of people’s perfumes, I can’t go into the chemical aisle in the supermarket,” she told the PA news agency. “So yes, a curse sometimes but I have also been out to Tanzania and have done research on TB, and research on cancer in the U.S. – just preliminary work. So it is a curse and a benefit.”
She said that she can sometimes smell people who have Parkinson’s while in the supermarket or walking down the street but has been told by medical ethicists she cannot tell them. “Which GP would accept a man or a woman walking in saying ‘the woman who smells Parkinson’s has told me I have it?’ Maybe in the future but not now.”
Mrs. Milne said that her husband, who died 7 years ago, was like a “changed man” after researchers found the link between Parkinson’s and odor.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
The test has been years in the making after academics realized that Joy Milne could smell the condition.
The 72-year-old from Perth, Scotland, has a rare condition that gives her a heightened sense of smell.
She noticed that her late husband Les developed a different odor when he was 33 – some 12 years before he was diagnosed with the disease, which leads to parts of the brain become progressively damaged over many years.
Mrs. Milne, dubbed ‘the woman who can smell Parkinson’s, described a “musky” aroma, different from his normal scent.
Her observation piqued the interest of scientists who decided to research what she could smell, and whether this could be harnessed to help identify people with the neurological condition.
‘Early phases of research’
Years later, academics at the University of Manchester (England) have made a breakthrough by developing a test that can identify people with Parkinson’s disease using a simple cotton bud run along the back of the neck.
Researchers can examine the sample to identify molecules linked to the disease to help diagnose whether someone has the disease.
While still in the early phases of research, scientists are excited about the prospect of the NHS being able to deploy a simple test for the disease.
There is currently no definitive test for Parkinson’s disease, with diagnosis based on a patient’s symptoms and medical history.
If the new skin swab is successful outside laboratory conditions it could be rolled out to achieve faster diagnosis.
Mrs. Milne told the PA news agency that it was “not acceptable” that people with Parkinson’s had such high degrees of neurologic damage at the time of diagnosis, adding: “I think it has to be detected far earlier – the same as cancer and diabetes, earlier diagnosis means far more efficient treatment and a better lifestyle for people.
“It has been found that exercise and change of diet can make a phenomenal difference.”
She said her husband, a former doctor, was “determined” to find the right researcher to examine the link between odor and Parkinson’s and they sought out Tilo Kunath, PhD, at the University of Edinburgh in 2012.
Chemical change in sebum
Dr. Kunath paired up with Perdita Barran, PhD, to examine Mrs. Milne’s sense of smell.
The scientists believed that the scent may be caused by a chemical change in skin oil, known as sebum, that is triggered by the disease.
In their preliminary work they asked Mrs. Milne to smell t-shirts worn by people who have Parkinson’s and those who did not.
Mrs. Milne correctly identified the t-shirts worn by Parkinson’s patients but she also said that one from the group of people without Parkinson’s smelled like the disease – 8 months later the individual who wore the t-shirt was diagnosed with Parkinson’s.
Researchers hoped the finding could lead to a test being developed to detect Parkinson’s, working under the assumption that if they were able to identify a unique chemical signature in the skin linked to Parkinson’s, they may eventually be able to diagnose the condition from simple skin swabs.
In 2019 researchers at the University of Manchester, led by Dr. Barran, announced that they had identified molecules linked to the disease found in skin swabs.
And now the scientists have developed a test using this information.
The tests have been successfully conducted in research labs and now scientists are assessing whether they can be used in hospital settings.
If successful, the test could potentially be used in the NHS so GPs can refer patients for Parkinson’s tests.
The findings, which have been published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, detail how sebum can be analyzed with mass spectrometry – a method which weighs molecules – to identify the disease.
Some molecules are present only in people who have Parkinson’s disease.
Researchers compared swabs from 79 people with Parkinson’s with a healthy control group of 71 people.
Dr. Barran told the PA news agency: “At the moment, there are no cures for Parkinson’s, but a confirmatory diagnostic would allow them to get the right treatment and get the drugs that will help to alleviate their symptoms.
“There would also be nonpharmaceutical interventions, including movement and also nutritional classes, which can really help.
“And I think most critically, it will allow them to have a confirmed diagnosis to actually know what’s wrong with them.”
She added: “What we are now doing is seeing if [hospital laboratories] can do what we’ve done in a research lab in a hospital lab. Once that’s happened then we want to see if we can make this a confirmatory diagnostic that could be used along with the referral process from a GP to a consultant. At the moment in Greater Manchester there are about 18,000 people waiting for a neurological consult and just to clear that list, without any new people joining it, will take up to 2 years. Of those 10%-15% are suspect Parkinson’s. Our test would be able to tell them whether they did or whether they didn’t [have Parkinson’s] and allow them to be referred to the right specialist. So at the moment, we’re talking about being able to refer people in a timely manner to the right specialism and that will be transformative.”
Mrs. Milne may be able to smell other diseases
Mrs. Milne is now working with scientists around the world to see if she can smell other diseases like cancer and tuberculosis.
“I have to go shopping very early or very late because of people’s perfumes, I can’t go into the chemical aisle in the supermarket,” she told the PA news agency. “So yes, a curse sometimes but I have also been out to Tanzania and have done research on TB, and research on cancer in the U.S. – just preliminary work. So it is a curse and a benefit.”
She said that she can sometimes smell people who have Parkinson’s while in the supermarket or walking down the street but has been told by medical ethicists she cannot tell them. “Which GP would accept a man or a woman walking in saying ‘the woman who smells Parkinson’s has told me I have it?’ Maybe in the future but not now.”
Mrs. Milne said that her husband, who died 7 years ago, was like a “changed man” after researchers found the link between Parkinson’s and odor.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
To vaccinate 6-month- to 5-year-olds against SARS-CoV-2 or not to vaccinate
A family’s decision to vaccinate their child is best made jointly with a trusted medical provider who knows the child and family. The American Academy of Pediatrics created a toolkit with resources for answering questions about the recently authorized SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) for 6-month- to 5-year-olds with science-backed vaccine facts, including links to other useful AAP information websites, talking points, graphics, and videos.1
SARS-CoV-2 seasonality
SARS-CoV-2 is now endemic, not a once-a-year seasonal virus. Seasons (aka surges) will occur whenever a new variant arises (twice yearly since 2020, Omicron BA.4/BA.5 currently), or when enough vaccine holdouts, newborns, and/or those with waning of prior immunity (vaccine or infection induced) accrue.
Emergency use authorization submission data for mRNA vaccine responses in young children2,3
Moderna in 6-month- through 5-year-olds. Two 25-mcg doses given 4-8 weeks apart produced 37.8% (95% confidence interval, 20.9%-51.1%) protection against symptomatic Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infections through 3 months of follow-up. Immunobridging analysis of antibody responses compared to 18- to 25-year-olds (100-mcg doses) showed the children’s responses were noninferior. Thus, the committee inferred that vaccine effectiveness in children should be similar to that in 18- to 25-year-olds. Fever, irritability, or local reaction/pain occurred in two-thirds after the second dose. Grade 3 reactions were noted in less than 5%.
Pfizer in 6-month- through 4-year-olds. Three 3-mcg doses, two doses 3-8 weeks apart and the third dose at least 8 weeks later (median 16 weeks), produced 80.3% (95% CI, 13.9%-96.7%) protection against symptomatic COVID-19 during the 6 weeks after the third dose. Local and systemic reactions occurred in 63.8%; less than 5% had grade 3 reactions (fever in about 3%, irritability in 1.3%, fatigue in 0.8%) mostly after second dose.
Neither duration of follow-up is very long. The Moderna data tell me that a third primary dose would have been better but restarting the trial to evaluate third doses would have delayed Moderna’s EUA another 4-6 months. The three-dose Pfizer data look better but may not have been as good with another 6 weeks of follow-up.
Additional post-EUA data will be collected. Boosters will be needed when immunity from both vaccines wanes (one estimate is about 6 months after the primary series). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices noted in their deliberations that vaccine-induced antibody responses are higher and cross-neutralize variants (even Omicron) better than infection-induced immunity.4
Are there downsides to the vaccines? Naysayers question vaccinating children less than 5 years old with reasons containing enough “truth” that they catch people’s attention, for example, “young children don’t get very sick with COVID-19,” “most have been infected already,” “RNA for the spike protein stays in the body for months,” or “myocarditis.” Naysayers can quote references in reputable journals but seem to spin selected data out of context or quote unconfirmed data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
Reasons to vaccinate
- While children have milder disease than adults, mid-June 2022 surveillance indicated 50 hospitalizations and 1 pediatric death each day from SARS-CoV-2.5
- Vaccinating young children endows a foundation of vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2 immunity that is superior to infection-induced immunity.4
- Long-term effects of large numbers of SARS-CoV-2 particles that enter every organ of a developing child have not been determined.
- Viral loads are lowered by prior vaccine; fewer viral replications lessen chances for newer variants to arise.
- Transmission is less in breakthrough infections than infections in the unvaccinated.
- Thirty percent of 5- to 11-year-olds hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 had no underlying conditions;6 hospitalization rates in newborn to 4-year-olds have been the highest in the Omicron surge.7
- No myocarditis or pericarditis episodes have been detected in 6-month- to 11-year-old trials.
- The AAP and ACIP recommend the mRNA vaccines.
My thoughts are that SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is just another “routine” childhood vaccine that prepares children for healthier futures, pandemic or not, and the vaccines are as safe as other routine vaccines.
And like other pediatric vaccines, it should be no surprise that boosters will be needed, even if no newer variants than Omicron BA.4/BA.5 arise. But we know newer variants will arise and, similar to influenza vaccine, new formulations, perhaps with multiple SARS-CoV-2 strain antigens, will be needed every year or so. Everyone will get SARS-CoV-2 multiple times in their lives no matter how careful they are. So isn’t it good medical practice to establish early the best available foundation for maintaining lifelong SARS-CoV-2 immunity?
To me it is like pertussis. Most pertussis-infected children are sick enough to be hospitalized; very few die. They are miserable with illnesses that take weeks to months to subside. The worst disease usually occurs in unvaccinated young children or those with underlying conditions. Reactogenicity was reduced with acellular vaccine but resulted in less immunogenicity, so we give boosters at intervals that best match waning immunity. Circulating strains can be different than the vaccine strain, so protection against infection is 80%. Finally, even the safest vaccine may very rarely have sequelae. That is why The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created. Yet the benefit-to-harm ratio for children and society favors universal pertussis vaccine use. And we vaccinate even those who have had pertussis because even infection-based immunity is incomplete and protection wanes. If arguments similar to those by SARS-CoV-2 vaccine naysayers were applied to acellular pertussis vaccine, it seems they would argue against pertussis vaccine for young children.
Another major issue has been “safety concerns” about the vaccines’ small amount of mRNA for the spike protein encased in microscopic lipid bubbles injected in the arm or leg. This mRNA is picked up by human cells, and in the cytoplasm (not the nucleus where our DNA resides) produces a limited supply of spike protein that is then picked up by antigen-presenting cells for short-lived distribution (days to 2 weeks at most) to regional lymph nodes where immune-memory processes are jump-started. Contrast that to even asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection where multibillions of virus particles are produced for up to 14 days with access to every bodily organ that contains ACE-2 receptors (they all do). Each virus particle hijacks a human cell producing thousands of mRNA for spike protein (and multiple other SARS-CoV-2 proteins), eventually releasing multibillions of lipid fragments from the ruptured cell. Comparing the amount of these components in the mRNA vaccines to those from infection is like comparing a campfire to the many-thousand-acre wildfire. So, if one is worried about the effects of spike protein and lipid fragments, the limited localized amounts in mRNA vaccines should make one much less concerned than the enormous amounts circulating throughout the body as a result of a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
My take is that children 6-months to 5-years-old deserve SARS-CoV-2–induced vaccine protection and we can and should strongly recommend it as medical providers and child advocates.
*Dr. Harrison is professor, University of Missouri Kansas City School of Medicine, department of medicine, infectious diseases section, Kansas City. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. AAP. 2022 Jun 21. As COVID-19 vaccines become available for children ages 6 months to 4 years, AAP urges families to reach out to pediatricians to ask questions and access vaccine. www.aap.org.
2. CDC. Grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE): Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 6 months–5 years. www.cdc.gov.
3. CDC. ACIP evidence to recommendations for use of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in children ages 6 months–5 years and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in children ages 6 months–4 years under an emergency use authorization. www.cdc.gov.
4. Tang J et al. Nat Commun. 2022;13:2979.
5. Children and COVID-19: State Data Report. 2022 Jun 30. www.aap.org.
6. Shi DS et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:574-81.
7. Marks KJ et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:429-36.
Other good resources for families are https://getvaccineanswers.org/ or www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-in-babies-and-children/art-20484405.
*This story was updated on July 19, 2022.
A family’s decision to vaccinate their child is best made jointly with a trusted medical provider who knows the child and family. The American Academy of Pediatrics created a toolkit with resources for answering questions about the recently authorized SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) for 6-month- to 5-year-olds with science-backed vaccine facts, including links to other useful AAP information websites, talking points, graphics, and videos.1
SARS-CoV-2 seasonality
SARS-CoV-2 is now endemic, not a once-a-year seasonal virus. Seasons (aka surges) will occur whenever a new variant arises (twice yearly since 2020, Omicron BA.4/BA.5 currently), or when enough vaccine holdouts, newborns, and/or those with waning of prior immunity (vaccine or infection induced) accrue.
Emergency use authorization submission data for mRNA vaccine responses in young children2,3
Moderna in 6-month- through 5-year-olds. Two 25-mcg doses given 4-8 weeks apart produced 37.8% (95% confidence interval, 20.9%-51.1%) protection against symptomatic Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infections through 3 months of follow-up. Immunobridging analysis of antibody responses compared to 18- to 25-year-olds (100-mcg doses) showed the children’s responses were noninferior. Thus, the committee inferred that vaccine effectiveness in children should be similar to that in 18- to 25-year-olds. Fever, irritability, or local reaction/pain occurred in two-thirds after the second dose. Grade 3 reactions were noted in less than 5%.
Pfizer in 6-month- through 4-year-olds. Three 3-mcg doses, two doses 3-8 weeks apart and the third dose at least 8 weeks later (median 16 weeks), produced 80.3% (95% CI, 13.9%-96.7%) protection against symptomatic COVID-19 during the 6 weeks after the third dose. Local and systemic reactions occurred in 63.8%; less than 5% had grade 3 reactions (fever in about 3%, irritability in 1.3%, fatigue in 0.8%) mostly after second dose.
Neither duration of follow-up is very long. The Moderna data tell me that a third primary dose would have been better but restarting the trial to evaluate third doses would have delayed Moderna’s EUA another 4-6 months. The three-dose Pfizer data look better but may not have been as good with another 6 weeks of follow-up.
Additional post-EUA data will be collected. Boosters will be needed when immunity from both vaccines wanes (one estimate is about 6 months after the primary series). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices noted in their deliberations that vaccine-induced antibody responses are higher and cross-neutralize variants (even Omicron) better than infection-induced immunity.4
Are there downsides to the vaccines? Naysayers question vaccinating children less than 5 years old with reasons containing enough “truth” that they catch people’s attention, for example, “young children don’t get very sick with COVID-19,” “most have been infected already,” “RNA for the spike protein stays in the body for months,” or “myocarditis.” Naysayers can quote references in reputable journals but seem to spin selected data out of context or quote unconfirmed data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
Reasons to vaccinate
- While children have milder disease than adults, mid-June 2022 surveillance indicated 50 hospitalizations and 1 pediatric death each day from SARS-CoV-2.5
- Vaccinating young children endows a foundation of vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2 immunity that is superior to infection-induced immunity.4
- Long-term effects of large numbers of SARS-CoV-2 particles that enter every organ of a developing child have not been determined.
- Viral loads are lowered by prior vaccine; fewer viral replications lessen chances for newer variants to arise.
- Transmission is less in breakthrough infections than infections in the unvaccinated.
- Thirty percent of 5- to 11-year-olds hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 had no underlying conditions;6 hospitalization rates in newborn to 4-year-olds have been the highest in the Omicron surge.7
- No myocarditis or pericarditis episodes have been detected in 6-month- to 11-year-old trials.
- The AAP and ACIP recommend the mRNA vaccines.
My thoughts are that SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is just another “routine” childhood vaccine that prepares children for healthier futures, pandemic or not, and the vaccines are as safe as other routine vaccines.
And like other pediatric vaccines, it should be no surprise that boosters will be needed, even if no newer variants than Omicron BA.4/BA.5 arise. But we know newer variants will arise and, similar to influenza vaccine, new formulations, perhaps with multiple SARS-CoV-2 strain antigens, will be needed every year or so. Everyone will get SARS-CoV-2 multiple times in their lives no matter how careful they are. So isn’t it good medical practice to establish early the best available foundation for maintaining lifelong SARS-CoV-2 immunity?
To me it is like pertussis. Most pertussis-infected children are sick enough to be hospitalized; very few die. They are miserable with illnesses that take weeks to months to subside. The worst disease usually occurs in unvaccinated young children or those with underlying conditions. Reactogenicity was reduced with acellular vaccine but resulted in less immunogenicity, so we give boosters at intervals that best match waning immunity. Circulating strains can be different than the vaccine strain, so protection against infection is 80%. Finally, even the safest vaccine may very rarely have sequelae. That is why The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created. Yet the benefit-to-harm ratio for children and society favors universal pertussis vaccine use. And we vaccinate even those who have had pertussis because even infection-based immunity is incomplete and protection wanes. If arguments similar to those by SARS-CoV-2 vaccine naysayers were applied to acellular pertussis vaccine, it seems they would argue against pertussis vaccine for young children.
Another major issue has been “safety concerns” about the vaccines’ small amount of mRNA for the spike protein encased in microscopic lipid bubbles injected in the arm or leg. This mRNA is picked up by human cells, and in the cytoplasm (not the nucleus where our DNA resides) produces a limited supply of spike protein that is then picked up by antigen-presenting cells for short-lived distribution (days to 2 weeks at most) to regional lymph nodes where immune-memory processes are jump-started. Contrast that to even asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection where multibillions of virus particles are produced for up to 14 days with access to every bodily organ that contains ACE-2 receptors (they all do). Each virus particle hijacks a human cell producing thousands of mRNA for spike protein (and multiple other SARS-CoV-2 proteins), eventually releasing multibillions of lipid fragments from the ruptured cell. Comparing the amount of these components in the mRNA vaccines to those from infection is like comparing a campfire to the many-thousand-acre wildfire. So, if one is worried about the effects of spike protein and lipid fragments, the limited localized amounts in mRNA vaccines should make one much less concerned than the enormous amounts circulating throughout the body as a result of a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
My take is that children 6-months to 5-years-old deserve SARS-CoV-2–induced vaccine protection and we can and should strongly recommend it as medical providers and child advocates.
*Dr. Harrison is professor, University of Missouri Kansas City School of Medicine, department of medicine, infectious diseases section, Kansas City. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. AAP. 2022 Jun 21. As COVID-19 vaccines become available for children ages 6 months to 4 years, AAP urges families to reach out to pediatricians to ask questions and access vaccine. www.aap.org.
2. CDC. Grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE): Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 6 months–5 years. www.cdc.gov.
3. CDC. ACIP evidence to recommendations for use of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in children ages 6 months–5 years and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in children ages 6 months–4 years under an emergency use authorization. www.cdc.gov.
4. Tang J et al. Nat Commun. 2022;13:2979.
5. Children and COVID-19: State Data Report. 2022 Jun 30. www.aap.org.
6. Shi DS et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:574-81.
7. Marks KJ et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:429-36.
Other good resources for families are https://getvaccineanswers.org/ or www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-in-babies-and-children/art-20484405.
*This story was updated on July 19, 2022.
A family’s decision to vaccinate their child is best made jointly with a trusted medical provider who knows the child and family. The American Academy of Pediatrics created a toolkit with resources for answering questions about the recently authorized SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) for 6-month- to 5-year-olds with science-backed vaccine facts, including links to other useful AAP information websites, talking points, graphics, and videos.1
SARS-CoV-2 seasonality
SARS-CoV-2 is now endemic, not a once-a-year seasonal virus. Seasons (aka surges) will occur whenever a new variant arises (twice yearly since 2020, Omicron BA.4/BA.5 currently), or when enough vaccine holdouts, newborns, and/or those with waning of prior immunity (vaccine or infection induced) accrue.
Emergency use authorization submission data for mRNA vaccine responses in young children2,3
Moderna in 6-month- through 5-year-olds. Two 25-mcg doses given 4-8 weeks apart produced 37.8% (95% confidence interval, 20.9%-51.1%) protection against symptomatic Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infections through 3 months of follow-up. Immunobridging analysis of antibody responses compared to 18- to 25-year-olds (100-mcg doses) showed the children’s responses were noninferior. Thus, the committee inferred that vaccine effectiveness in children should be similar to that in 18- to 25-year-olds. Fever, irritability, or local reaction/pain occurred in two-thirds after the second dose. Grade 3 reactions were noted in less than 5%.
Pfizer in 6-month- through 4-year-olds. Three 3-mcg doses, two doses 3-8 weeks apart and the third dose at least 8 weeks later (median 16 weeks), produced 80.3% (95% CI, 13.9%-96.7%) protection against symptomatic COVID-19 during the 6 weeks after the third dose. Local and systemic reactions occurred in 63.8%; less than 5% had grade 3 reactions (fever in about 3%, irritability in 1.3%, fatigue in 0.8%) mostly after second dose.
Neither duration of follow-up is very long. The Moderna data tell me that a third primary dose would have been better but restarting the trial to evaluate third doses would have delayed Moderna’s EUA another 4-6 months. The three-dose Pfizer data look better but may not have been as good with another 6 weeks of follow-up.
Additional post-EUA data will be collected. Boosters will be needed when immunity from both vaccines wanes (one estimate is about 6 months after the primary series). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices noted in their deliberations that vaccine-induced antibody responses are higher and cross-neutralize variants (even Omicron) better than infection-induced immunity.4
Are there downsides to the vaccines? Naysayers question vaccinating children less than 5 years old with reasons containing enough “truth” that they catch people’s attention, for example, “young children don’t get very sick with COVID-19,” “most have been infected already,” “RNA for the spike protein stays in the body for months,” or “myocarditis.” Naysayers can quote references in reputable journals but seem to spin selected data out of context or quote unconfirmed data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
Reasons to vaccinate
- While children have milder disease than adults, mid-June 2022 surveillance indicated 50 hospitalizations and 1 pediatric death each day from SARS-CoV-2.5
- Vaccinating young children endows a foundation of vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2 immunity that is superior to infection-induced immunity.4
- Long-term effects of large numbers of SARS-CoV-2 particles that enter every organ of a developing child have not been determined.
- Viral loads are lowered by prior vaccine; fewer viral replications lessen chances for newer variants to arise.
- Transmission is less in breakthrough infections than infections in the unvaccinated.
- Thirty percent of 5- to 11-year-olds hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 had no underlying conditions;6 hospitalization rates in newborn to 4-year-olds have been the highest in the Omicron surge.7
- No myocarditis or pericarditis episodes have been detected in 6-month- to 11-year-old trials.
- The AAP and ACIP recommend the mRNA vaccines.
My thoughts are that SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is just another “routine” childhood vaccine that prepares children for healthier futures, pandemic or not, and the vaccines are as safe as other routine vaccines.
And like other pediatric vaccines, it should be no surprise that boosters will be needed, even if no newer variants than Omicron BA.4/BA.5 arise. But we know newer variants will arise and, similar to influenza vaccine, new formulations, perhaps with multiple SARS-CoV-2 strain antigens, will be needed every year or so. Everyone will get SARS-CoV-2 multiple times in their lives no matter how careful they are. So isn’t it good medical practice to establish early the best available foundation for maintaining lifelong SARS-CoV-2 immunity?
To me it is like pertussis. Most pertussis-infected children are sick enough to be hospitalized; very few die. They are miserable with illnesses that take weeks to months to subside. The worst disease usually occurs in unvaccinated young children or those with underlying conditions. Reactogenicity was reduced with acellular vaccine but resulted in less immunogenicity, so we give boosters at intervals that best match waning immunity. Circulating strains can be different than the vaccine strain, so protection against infection is 80%. Finally, even the safest vaccine may very rarely have sequelae. That is why The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created. Yet the benefit-to-harm ratio for children and society favors universal pertussis vaccine use. And we vaccinate even those who have had pertussis because even infection-based immunity is incomplete and protection wanes. If arguments similar to those by SARS-CoV-2 vaccine naysayers were applied to acellular pertussis vaccine, it seems they would argue against pertussis vaccine for young children.
Another major issue has been “safety concerns” about the vaccines’ small amount of mRNA for the spike protein encased in microscopic lipid bubbles injected in the arm or leg. This mRNA is picked up by human cells, and in the cytoplasm (not the nucleus where our DNA resides) produces a limited supply of spike protein that is then picked up by antigen-presenting cells for short-lived distribution (days to 2 weeks at most) to regional lymph nodes where immune-memory processes are jump-started. Contrast that to even asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection where multibillions of virus particles are produced for up to 14 days with access to every bodily organ that contains ACE-2 receptors (they all do). Each virus particle hijacks a human cell producing thousands of mRNA for spike protein (and multiple other SARS-CoV-2 proteins), eventually releasing multibillions of lipid fragments from the ruptured cell. Comparing the amount of these components in the mRNA vaccines to those from infection is like comparing a campfire to the many-thousand-acre wildfire. So, if one is worried about the effects of spike protein and lipid fragments, the limited localized amounts in mRNA vaccines should make one much less concerned than the enormous amounts circulating throughout the body as a result of a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
My take is that children 6-months to 5-years-old deserve SARS-CoV-2–induced vaccine protection and we can and should strongly recommend it as medical providers and child advocates.
*Dr. Harrison is professor, University of Missouri Kansas City School of Medicine, department of medicine, infectious diseases section, Kansas City. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. AAP. 2022 Jun 21. As COVID-19 vaccines become available for children ages 6 months to 4 years, AAP urges families to reach out to pediatricians to ask questions and access vaccine. www.aap.org.
2. CDC. Grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE): Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 6 months–5 years. www.cdc.gov.
3. CDC. ACIP evidence to recommendations for use of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in children ages 6 months–5 years and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in children ages 6 months–4 years under an emergency use authorization. www.cdc.gov.
4. Tang J et al. Nat Commun. 2022;13:2979.
5. Children and COVID-19: State Data Report. 2022 Jun 30. www.aap.org.
6. Shi DS et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:574-81.
7. Marks KJ et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:429-36.
Other good resources for families are https://getvaccineanswers.org/ or www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-in-babies-and-children/art-20484405.
*This story was updated on July 19, 2022.
ACIP simplifies adult vaccinations for HepB and pneumonia
REFERENCES
- Weng MK. Universal adult hepatitis B vaccinations: work group considerations. Presented to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on November 3, 2021. Accessed November 17, 2021. www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/02-HepWG-weng-508.pdf
- Kovayashi M. Considerations for age-based and risk-based use of PCV15 and PCV20 among US adults and proposed policy options. Presented to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on October 20, 2021. Accessed November 17, 2021. www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-10-20-21/02-Pneumococcal-Kobayashi-508.pdf
- Schillie S, Vellozzi C, Reingold A, et al. Prevention of hepatitis B virus in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2018;67:1-31.
- Matanock A, Lee G, Gierke R, et al. Use of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine among adults aged ≥65 years: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68:1069-1075.
REFERENCES
- Weng MK. Universal adult hepatitis B vaccinations: work group considerations. Presented to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on November 3, 2021. Accessed November 17, 2021. www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/02-HepWG-weng-508.pdf
- Kovayashi M. Considerations for age-based and risk-based use of PCV15 and PCV20 among US adults and proposed policy options. Presented to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on October 20, 2021. Accessed November 17, 2021. www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-10-20-21/02-Pneumococcal-Kobayashi-508.pdf
- Schillie S, Vellozzi C, Reingold A, et al. Prevention of hepatitis B virus in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2018;67:1-31.
- Matanock A, Lee G, Gierke R, et al. Use of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine among adults aged ≥65 years: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68:1069-1075.
REFERENCES
- Weng MK. Universal adult hepatitis B vaccinations: work group considerations. Presented to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on November 3, 2021. Accessed November 17, 2021. www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/02-HepWG-weng-508.pdf
- Kovayashi M. Considerations for age-based and risk-based use of PCV15 and PCV20 among US adults and proposed policy options. Presented to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on October 20, 2021. Accessed November 17, 2021. www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-10-20-21/02-Pneumococcal-Kobayashi-508.pdf
- Schillie S, Vellozzi C, Reingold A, et al. Prevention of hepatitis B virus in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2018;67:1-31.
- Matanock A, Lee G, Gierke R, et al. Use of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine among adults aged ≥65 years: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68:1069-1075.
Beyond the headlines: A closer look at the USPSTF draft recs on aspirin
REFERENCES
- US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease: preventive medication. Published October 12, 2021. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-evidence-review/aspirin-use-to-prevent-cardiovascular-disease-preventive-medication
- National Center for Health Statistics. Figure 4. Number of deaths, percentage of total deaths, and age-adjusted death rates for the 10 leading causes of death in 2019: United States, 2018 and 2019. In: Data Brief 395: Mortality in the United States 2019. Published December 2020. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db395-tables-508.pdf
- American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. Heart risk calculator. Updated November 12, 2017. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cvriskcalculator.com/
REFERENCES
- US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease: preventive medication. Published October 12, 2021. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-evidence-review/aspirin-use-to-prevent-cardiovascular-disease-preventive-medication
- National Center for Health Statistics. Figure 4. Number of deaths, percentage of total deaths, and age-adjusted death rates for the 10 leading causes of death in 2019: United States, 2018 and 2019. In: Data Brief 395: Mortality in the United States 2019. Published December 2020. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db395-tables-508.pdf
- American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. Heart risk calculator. Updated November 12, 2017. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cvriskcalculator.com/
REFERENCES
- US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease: preventive medication. Published October 12, 2021. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-evidence-review/aspirin-use-to-prevent-cardiovascular-disease-preventive-medication
- National Center for Health Statistics. Figure 4. Number of deaths, percentage of total deaths, and age-adjusted death rates for the 10 leading causes of death in 2019: United States, 2018 and 2019. In: Data Brief 395: Mortality in the United States 2019. Published December 2020. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db395-tables-508.pdf
- American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. Heart risk calculator. Updated November 12, 2017. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cvriskcalculator.com/