User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
Dysregulated sleep is common in children with eosinophilic esophagitis
, Rasintra Siriwat, MD, and colleagues have ascertained.
Children with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) also were found to have a high prevalence of atopic diseases, including allergic rhinitis and eczema – findings that could be driving the breathing problems, said Dr. Siriwat, a neurology fellow at the Cleveland Clinic, and coauthors.
The retrospective study comprised 81 children with a diagnosis of EoE who were referred to sleep clinics. In this group, 46 of the children had active EoE (having gastrointestinal symptoms, including feeding difficulties, dysphagia, reflux, nausea/vomiting, or epigastric pain at presentation). The other 35 had an EoE diagnosis but no symptoms on presentation and were categorized as having inactive EoE. Most were male (71.6%) and white (92.5%). The mean age in the cohort was 10 years and the mean body mass index for all subjects was 22 kg/m2. A control group of 192 children without an EoE diagnosis who had overnight polysomnography were included in the analysis.
Allergic-type comorbidities were common among those with active EoE, including allergic rhinitis (55.5%), food allergy (39.5%), and eczema (26%). In addition, a quarter had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, 22% an autism spectrum disorder, 21% a neurological disease, and 29% a psychiatric disorder.
Several sleep complaints were common in the entire EoE cohort, including snoring (76.5 %), restless sleep (66.6%), legs jerking or leg discomfort (43.2%), and daytime sleepiness (58%).
All children underwent an overnight polysomnography. Compared with controls, the children with EoE had significantly higher non-REM2 sleep, significantly lower non-REM3 sleep, lower REM, increased periodic leg movement disorder, and increased arousal index.
“Of note, we found a much higher percentage of [periodic leg movement disorder] in active EoE compared to inactive EoE,” the authors said.
The most common sleep diagnosis for the children with EoE was sleep-disordered breathing. Of 62 children with EoE and sleep disordered breathing, 37% had obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Two patients had central sleep apnea and five had nocturnal hypoventilation. Children with EoE also reported parasomnia symptoms such as sleep talking (35.8%), sleepwalking (16%), bruxism (23.4%), night terrors (28.4%), and nocturnal enuresis (21.2%).
Of the 59 children with leg movement, 20 had periodic limb movement disorder and 5 were diagnosed with restless leg syndrome. Two were diagnosed with narcolepsy and three with hypersomnia. Four children had a circadian rhythm disorder.
“Notably, the majority of children with EoE had symptoms of sleep-disordered breathing, and more than one-third of total subjects were diagnosed with OSA,” the authors noted. “However, most of them were mild-moderate OSA. It should be noted that the prevalence of OSA in the pediatric population is 1%-5% mostly between the ages of 2-8 years, while the mean age of our subjects was 10 years old. The high prevalence of mild-moderate OSA in the EoE population might be explained by the relationship between EoE and atopic disease.”
Dr. Siriwat had no financial disclosures. The study was supported by Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Research Fund.
SOURCE: Siriwat R et al. Sleep Med. 2019 Sep 11. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2019.08.018.
, Rasintra Siriwat, MD, and colleagues have ascertained.
Children with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) also were found to have a high prevalence of atopic diseases, including allergic rhinitis and eczema – findings that could be driving the breathing problems, said Dr. Siriwat, a neurology fellow at the Cleveland Clinic, and coauthors.
The retrospective study comprised 81 children with a diagnosis of EoE who were referred to sleep clinics. In this group, 46 of the children had active EoE (having gastrointestinal symptoms, including feeding difficulties, dysphagia, reflux, nausea/vomiting, or epigastric pain at presentation). The other 35 had an EoE diagnosis but no symptoms on presentation and were categorized as having inactive EoE. Most were male (71.6%) and white (92.5%). The mean age in the cohort was 10 years and the mean body mass index for all subjects was 22 kg/m2. A control group of 192 children without an EoE diagnosis who had overnight polysomnography were included in the analysis.
Allergic-type comorbidities were common among those with active EoE, including allergic rhinitis (55.5%), food allergy (39.5%), and eczema (26%). In addition, a quarter had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, 22% an autism spectrum disorder, 21% a neurological disease, and 29% a psychiatric disorder.
Several sleep complaints were common in the entire EoE cohort, including snoring (76.5 %), restless sleep (66.6%), legs jerking or leg discomfort (43.2%), and daytime sleepiness (58%).
All children underwent an overnight polysomnography. Compared with controls, the children with EoE had significantly higher non-REM2 sleep, significantly lower non-REM3 sleep, lower REM, increased periodic leg movement disorder, and increased arousal index.
“Of note, we found a much higher percentage of [periodic leg movement disorder] in active EoE compared to inactive EoE,” the authors said.
The most common sleep diagnosis for the children with EoE was sleep-disordered breathing. Of 62 children with EoE and sleep disordered breathing, 37% had obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Two patients had central sleep apnea and five had nocturnal hypoventilation. Children with EoE also reported parasomnia symptoms such as sleep talking (35.8%), sleepwalking (16%), bruxism (23.4%), night terrors (28.4%), and nocturnal enuresis (21.2%).
Of the 59 children with leg movement, 20 had periodic limb movement disorder and 5 were diagnosed with restless leg syndrome. Two were diagnosed with narcolepsy and three with hypersomnia. Four children had a circadian rhythm disorder.
“Notably, the majority of children with EoE had symptoms of sleep-disordered breathing, and more than one-third of total subjects were diagnosed with OSA,” the authors noted. “However, most of them were mild-moderate OSA. It should be noted that the prevalence of OSA in the pediatric population is 1%-5% mostly between the ages of 2-8 years, while the mean age of our subjects was 10 years old. The high prevalence of mild-moderate OSA in the EoE population might be explained by the relationship between EoE and atopic disease.”
Dr. Siriwat had no financial disclosures. The study was supported by Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Research Fund.
SOURCE: Siriwat R et al. Sleep Med. 2019 Sep 11. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2019.08.018.
, Rasintra Siriwat, MD, and colleagues have ascertained.
Children with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) also were found to have a high prevalence of atopic diseases, including allergic rhinitis and eczema – findings that could be driving the breathing problems, said Dr. Siriwat, a neurology fellow at the Cleveland Clinic, and coauthors.
The retrospective study comprised 81 children with a diagnosis of EoE who were referred to sleep clinics. In this group, 46 of the children had active EoE (having gastrointestinal symptoms, including feeding difficulties, dysphagia, reflux, nausea/vomiting, or epigastric pain at presentation). The other 35 had an EoE diagnosis but no symptoms on presentation and were categorized as having inactive EoE. Most were male (71.6%) and white (92.5%). The mean age in the cohort was 10 years and the mean body mass index for all subjects was 22 kg/m2. A control group of 192 children without an EoE diagnosis who had overnight polysomnography were included in the analysis.
Allergic-type comorbidities were common among those with active EoE, including allergic rhinitis (55.5%), food allergy (39.5%), and eczema (26%). In addition, a quarter had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, 22% an autism spectrum disorder, 21% a neurological disease, and 29% a psychiatric disorder.
Several sleep complaints were common in the entire EoE cohort, including snoring (76.5 %), restless sleep (66.6%), legs jerking or leg discomfort (43.2%), and daytime sleepiness (58%).
All children underwent an overnight polysomnography. Compared with controls, the children with EoE had significantly higher non-REM2 sleep, significantly lower non-REM3 sleep, lower REM, increased periodic leg movement disorder, and increased arousal index.
“Of note, we found a much higher percentage of [periodic leg movement disorder] in active EoE compared to inactive EoE,” the authors said.
The most common sleep diagnosis for the children with EoE was sleep-disordered breathing. Of 62 children with EoE and sleep disordered breathing, 37% had obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Two patients had central sleep apnea and five had nocturnal hypoventilation. Children with EoE also reported parasomnia symptoms such as sleep talking (35.8%), sleepwalking (16%), bruxism (23.4%), night terrors (28.4%), and nocturnal enuresis (21.2%).
Of the 59 children with leg movement, 20 had periodic limb movement disorder and 5 were diagnosed with restless leg syndrome. Two were diagnosed with narcolepsy and three with hypersomnia. Four children had a circadian rhythm disorder.
“Notably, the majority of children with EoE had symptoms of sleep-disordered breathing, and more than one-third of total subjects were diagnosed with OSA,” the authors noted. “However, most of them were mild-moderate OSA. It should be noted that the prevalence of OSA in the pediatric population is 1%-5% mostly between the ages of 2-8 years, while the mean age of our subjects was 10 years old. The high prevalence of mild-moderate OSA in the EoE population might be explained by the relationship between EoE and atopic disease.”
Dr. Siriwat had no financial disclosures. The study was supported by Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Research Fund.
SOURCE: Siriwat R et al. Sleep Med. 2019 Sep 11. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2019.08.018.
FROM SLEEP MEDICINE
Baseline neurofilament light levels track with brain volume loss in MS
STOCKHOLM – according to a recent study. The correlation between CSF NfL at baseline and the percent of total brain volume change was statistically significant and persisted over time, said Alok Bhan, MD, in an interview at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“We found a significant correlation between loss of total brain volume with baseline CSF NfL at the 5- and 10-year follow-up,” reported Dr. Bhan. At the 5-year mark, the correlation coefficient (r) was –0.430 (P = .003); at 10 years, the correlation coefficient was –0.395 (P = .042).
Higher CSF levels of the neuropeptide “thereby predicted steeper loss of brain volume over a 10-year disease course, and baseline CSF NfL could thus be a prognostic factor for later MRI-confirmed progression,” reported Dr. Bhan, of the department of neurology at Stavanger (Norway) University Hospital, and his coinvestigators.
Magnetic resonance imaging, the current standard in tracking MS lesions, has limitations, noted the investigators. “MRI pathology is only revealed after the injury has manifested itself, and as it is commonly being conducted no more frequent[ly] than annually, lesions may have developed up to a year” before they are evident on MRI scans, they said.
Concerns about long-term effects of the gadolinium deposition that results from frequent scans are rising as well, said Dr. Bhan. For these reasons, he said, MRI is an imperfect biomarker for MS progression.
NfL is a polypeptide in neurons that has been proposed as prognostic in MS, but “longitudinal data regarding its prognostic value” are still scarce, said Dr. Bhan.
To help fill that knowledge gap, the study aimed to assess how NfL obtained from CSF at the time of MS diagnosis correlated with MRI-determined loss of brain volume over a period of 10 years.
Participants’ brain atrophy was assessed using MRI performed at baseline and at 5 and 10 years using the same protocol on a 1.5 Tesla scanner. The protocol included dual spin echo T2-weighted imaging, 3-D T1-weighted imaging, and dual spin echo T1-weighted imaging. In addition to obtaining both global and regional changes in brain volume, the investigators also calculated regional volumes for subcortical deep gray matter.
Cerebrospinal fluid obtained from the lumbar puncture performed at the time of baseline assessment was the source for the single NfL value, obtained by use of a commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
Looking at volume loss in specific brain regions, significant correlations were seen between volume loss in the deep gray matter at both 5 and 10 years (r = –0.430 and –0.395; P = .006 and .042, respectively). At 10 years, pallidal nuclei and hippocampal volume losses also correlated significantly with baseline CSF NfL (r = –0.445 and –0.472; P = .020 and .013, respectively).
Attrition was substantial in the cohort, with the initial 44 patients dropping to 39 at 5 years and 27 by 10 years. Of those 44 initial enrollees, 30 were female, and the mean age was about 42 years at baseline. Duration of MS was a median 60 months at the time of enrollment, and the mean Extended Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 3.5 at baseline. Most patients (n = 35) had relapsing-remitting MS.
Just 16% of enrollees were on disease-modifying therapy at baseline, but this figure climbed to 52% by the end of the study period, said Dr. Bhan, a trend that in part reflected changes in practice patterns over the study period.
“Our study is yet another report that supports the use of CSF NfL in the routine work-up of newly diagnosed MS,” noted Dr. Bhan and his coauthors. Having a baseline CSF NfL level “would give patients an indication of future disease burden 10 years in advance,” thereby adding to the prognostic toolkit, they said.
Dr. Bhan reported receiving research funding from Novartis Norway, and two other coauthors reported several financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Bhan A et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P592.
STOCKHOLM – according to a recent study. The correlation between CSF NfL at baseline and the percent of total brain volume change was statistically significant and persisted over time, said Alok Bhan, MD, in an interview at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“We found a significant correlation between loss of total brain volume with baseline CSF NfL at the 5- and 10-year follow-up,” reported Dr. Bhan. At the 5-year mark, the correlation coefficient (r) was –0.430 (P = .003); at 10 years, the correlation coefficient was –0.395 (P = .042).
Higher CSF levels of the neuropeptide “thereby predicted steeper loss of brain volume over a 10-year disease course, and baseline CSF NfL could thus be a prognostic factor for later MRI-confirmed progression,” reported Dr. Bhan, of the department of neurology at Stavanger (Norway) University Hospital, and his coinvestigators.
Magnetic resonance imaging, the current standard in tracking MS lesions, has limitations, noted the investigators. “MRI pathology is only revealed after the injury has manifested itself, and as it is commonly being conducted no more frequent[ly] than annually, lesions may have developed up to a year” before they are evident on MRI scans, they said.
Concerns about long-term effects of the gadolinium deposition that results from frequent scans are rising as well, said Dr. Bhan. For these reasons, he said, MRI is an imperfect biomarker for MS progression.
NfL is a polypeptide in neurons that has been proposed as prognostic in MS, but “longitudinal data regarding its prognostic value” are still scarce, said Dr. Bhan.
To help fill that knowledge gap, the study aimed to assess how NfL obtained from CSF at the time of MS diagnosis correlated with MRI-determined loss of brain volume over a period of 10 years.
Participants’ brain atrophy was assessed using MRI performed at baseline and at 5 and 10 years using the same protocol on a 1.5 Tesla scanner. The protocol included dual spin echo T2-weighted imaging, 3-D T1-weighted imaging, and dual spin echo T1-weighted imaging. In addition to obtaining both global and regional changes in brain volume, the investigators also calculated regional volumes for subcortical deep gray matter.
Cerebrospinal fluid obtained from the lumbar puncture performed at the time of baseline assessment was the source for the single NfL value, obtained by use of a commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
Looking at volume loss in specific brain regions, significant correlations were seen between volume loss in the deep gray matter at both 5 and 10 years (r = –0.430 and –0.395; P = .006 and .042, respectively). At 10 years, pallidal nuclei and hippocampal volume losses also correlated significantly with baseline CSF NfL (r = –0.445 and –0.472; P = .020 and .013, respectively).
Attrition was substantial in the cohort, with the initial 44 patients dropping to 39 at 5 years and 27 by 10 years. Of those 44 initial enrollees, 30 were female, and the mean age was about 42 years at baseline. Duration of MS was a median 60 months at the time of enrollment, and the mean Extended Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 3.5 at baseline. Most patients (n = 35) had relapsing-remitting MS.
Just 16% of enrollees were on disease-modifying therapy at baseline, but this figure climbed to 52% by the end of the study period, said Dr. Bhan, a trend that in part reflected changes in practice patterns over the study period.
“Our study is yet another report that supports the use of CSF NfL in the routine work-up of newly diagnosed MS,” noted Dr. Bhan and his coauthors. Having a baseline CSF NfL level “would give patients an indication of future disease burden 10 years in advance,” thereby adding to the prognostic toolkit, they said.
Dr. Bhan reported receiving research funding from Novartis Norway, and two other coauthors reported several financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Bhan A et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P592.
STOCKHOLM – according to a recent study. The correlation between CSF NfL at baseline and the percent of total brain volume change was statistically significant and persisted over time, said Alok Bhan, MD, in an interview at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“We found a significant correlation between loss of total brain volume with baseline CSF NfL at the 5- and 10-year follow-up,” reported Dr. Bhan. At the 5-year mark, the correlation coefficient (r) was –0.430 (P = .003); at 10 years, the correlation coefficient was –0.395 (P = .042).
Higher CSF levels of the neuropeptide “thereby predicted steeper loss of brain volume over a 10-year disease course, and baseline CSF NfL could thus be a prognostic factor for later MRI-confirmed progression,” reported Dr. Bhan, of the department of neurology at Stavanger (Norway) University Hospital, and his coinvestigators.
Magnetic resonance imaging, the current standard in tracking MS lesions, has limitations, noted the investigators. “MRI pathology is only revealed after the injury has manifested itself, and as it is commonly being conducted no more frequent[ly] than annually, lesions may have developed up to a year” before they are evident on MRI scans, they said.
Concerns about long-term effects of the gadolinium deposition that results from frequent scans are rising as well, said Dr. Bhan. For these reasons, he said, MRI is an imperfect biomarker for MS progression.
NfL is a polypeptide in neurons that has been proposed as prognostic in MS, but “longitudinal data regarding its prognostic value” are still scarce, said Dr. Bhan.
To help fill that knowledge gap, the study aimed to assess how NfL obtained from CSF at the time of MS diagnosis correlated with MRI-determined loss of brain volume over a period of 10 years.
Participants’ brain atrophy was assessed using MRI performed at baseline and at 5 and 10 years using the same protocol on a 1.5 Tesla scanner. The protocol included dual spin echo T2-weighted imaging, 3-D T1-weighted imaging, and dual spin echo T1-weighted imaging. In addition to obtaining both global and regional changes in brain volume, the investigators also calculated regional volumes for subcortical deep gray matter.
Cerebrospinal fluid obtained from the lumbar puncture performed at the time of baseline assessment was the source for the single NfL value, obtained by use of a commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
Looking at volume loss in specific brain regions, significant correlations were seen between volume loss in the deep gray matter at both 5 and 10 years (r = –0.430 and –0.395; P = .006 and .042, respectively). At 10 years, pallidal nuclei and hippocampal volume losses also correlated significantly with baseline CSF NfL (r = –0.445 and –0.472; P = .020 and .013, respectively).
Attrition was substantial in the cohort, with the initial 44 patients dropping to 39 at 5 years and 27 by 10 years. Of those 44 initial enrollees, 30 were female, and the mean age was about 42 years at baseline. Duration of MS was a median 60 months at the time of enrollment, and the mean Extended Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 3.5 at baseline. Most patients (n = 35) had relapsing-remitting MS.
Just 16% of enrollees were on disease-modifying therapy at baseline, but this figure climbed to 52% by the end of the study period, said Dr. Bhan, a trend that in part reflected changes in practice patterns over the study period.
“Our study is yet another report that supports the use of CSF NfL in the routine work-up of newly diagnosed MS,” noted Dr. Bhan and his coauthors. Having a baseline CSF NfL level “would give patients an indication of future disease burden 10 years in advance,” thereby adding to the prognostic toolkit, they said.
Dr. Bhan reported receiving research funding from Novartis Norway, and two other coauthors reported several financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Bhan A et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P592.
REPORTING FROM ECTRIMS 2019
Judge rules for insurer in doctor’s allocation lawsuit
A judge has sided with a medical malpractice insurer in a legal challenge that accused the company of misallocating blame among physicians after a liability settlement.
In a Sept. 27 decision, Judge Debra Squires-Lee of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court ruled that Medical Professional Mutual Insurance Company (ProMutual) acted reasonably when it settled a medical liability claim for $500,000 against several health providers and allocated responsibility for 30% of the settlement ($150,000) to internist Nataly Minkina, MD. ProMutual was well within its rights and obligations when it settled the underlying claim and did not act in bad faith when assigning responsibility in the case, Judge Squires-Lee wrote in her 49-page ruling.
“At its heart, this case is about a multiple defendant malpractice lawsuit with finger pointing by Dr. Minkina against her codefendants and others, and a disagreement about ProMutual’s ultimate determination about how to allocate a global settlement with the plaintiffs amongst ProMutual’s insureds,” Judge Squires-Lee wrote in the decision. “Dr. Minkina strongly believes that she did not fail [the patient], that she acted reasonably, and that her treatment of [the patient] satisfied the standard of care. She also questions why ProMutual failed to allocate liability in the [patient’s] suit to other physicians. However ... the question for this court is whether ProMutual committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in its settlement and allocation of its settlement. I conclude that ProMutual did not.”
The case stems from a patient’s lawsuit against Dr. Minkina and several others at Blue Hills Medical Associates in Braintree, Mass. The patient alleged that the health care professionals were responsible for a missed breast cancer diagnosis. Dr. Minkina saw the patient just once in 2002 while covering for another doctor. During the visit, she confirmed some nodularity in the 55-year-old women’s breast and referred her for a mammogram and an ultrasound. A radiologist twice reported no abnormalities, which Dr. Minkina said she relayed to the patient. Dr. Minkina left the practice shortly after.
The patient visited the practice several more times and was referred for another mammogram in 2006, the results of which revealed some signs of malignancy, according to court documents. However, a nurse at the practice misread, misunderstood, or overlooked the signs and recorded that “the benign breast condition had no changes,” according to court transcripts. Later that year, the patient visited the practice complaining of headaches and a droopy eye at which time her primary care physician diagnosed sinusitis and prescribed antibiotics. In 2007, the patient underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the brain and the breast, which revealed widespread metastatic carcinoma. She and her family sued Dr. Minkina and several others in June 2007. The patient died in 2008.
ProMutual settled the case against the defendants for $500,000 in 2008, allocating 30% of the liability to Dr. Minkina, 10% of the nurse practitioner, 60% to the medical practice, and no liability to the other doctors named. ProMutual contended Dr. Minkina bore more responsibility than the other health care professionals named for the delayed diagnosis because of causation factors and standard of care violations, namely that Dr. Minkina should have pursued a biopsy for the patient.
Dr. Minkina sued the insurer in 2012, claiming chiefly that the insurer allocated an unjustifiably high percentage of liability to her because she was no longer insured and because the company had an economic incentive to allocate a disproportionate percentage of responsibility and damages.
A lower court initially dismissed Dr. Minkina’s suit, but the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court in 2015 overturned that decision, ruling the case could move forward. In 2018, the superior court agreed Dr. Minkina had a valid bad faith claim, stating that she had provided information about ProMutual’s conduct from which “a reasonable juror could infer the defendant’s bad faith in connection with its settling the underlying malpractice suit, including the allocation of liability.
But Judge Squires-Lee ruled that trial evidence showed that ProMutual did not act for its own benefit or favor other insureds over Dr. Minkina. The judge wrote that the insurer satisfied its contractual and legal obligations when defending the underlying legal claim.
Dr. Minkina said she was disappointed with the ruling, but that she is considering her legal avenues.
“[The] judge’s decision in my case against ProMutual is obviously disappointing, but it is not the first time [the] trial court decided against me in this case,” Dr. Minkina said in an interview. “It is a battle between David and Goliath, [a] single physician against [a] $3.6 billion insurance company with unlimited resources. The decision has just been announced and it is voluminous. I am still reading it and evaluating my options with my attorneys, but it is not the end of the road yet.”
ProMutual declined to comment about the decision.
A judge has sided with a medical malpractice insurer in a legal challenge that accused the company of misallocating blame among physicians after a liability settlement.
In a Sept. 27 decision, Judge Debra Squires-Lee of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court ruled that Medical Professional Mutual Insurance Company (ProMutual) acted reasonably when it settled a medical liability claim for $500,000 against several health providers and allocated responsibility for 30% of the settlement ($150,000) to internist Nataly Minkina, MD. ProMutual was well within its rights and obligations when it settled the underlying claim and did not act in bad faith when assigning responsibility in the case, Judge Squires-Lee wrote in her 49-page ruling.
“At its heart, this case is about a multiple defendant malpractice lawsuit with finger pointing by Dr. Minkina against her codefendants and others, and a disagreement about ProMutual’s ultimate determination about how to allocate a global settlement with the plaintiffs amongst ProMutual’s insureds,” Judge Squires-Lee wrote in the decision. “Dr. Minkina strongly believes that she did not fail [the patient], that she acted reasonably, and that her treatment of [the patient] satisfied the standard of care. She also questions why ProMutual failed to allocate liability in the [patient’s] suit to other physicians. However ... the question for this court is whether ProMutual committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in its settlement and allocation of its settlement. I conclude that ProMutual did not.”
The case stems from a patient’s lawsuit against Dr. Minkina and several others at Blue Hills Medical Associates in Braintree, Mass. The patient alleged that the health care professionals were responsible for a missed breast cancer diagnosis. Dr. Minkina saw the patient just once in 2002 while covering for another doctor. During the visit, she confirmed some nodularity in the 55-year-old women’s breast and referred her for a mammogram and an ultrasound. A radiologist twice reported no abnormalities, which Dr. Minkina said she relayed to the patient. Dr. Minkina left the practice shortly after.
The patient visited the practice several more times and was referred for another mammogram in 2006, the results of which revealed some signs of malignancy, according to court documents. However, a nurse at the practice misread, misunderstood, or overlooked the signs and recorded that “the benign breast condition had no changes,” according to court transcripts. Later that year, the patient visited the practice complaining of headaches and a droopy eye at which time her primary care physician diagnosed sinusitis and prescribed antibiotics. In 2007, the patient underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the brain and the breast, which revealed widespread metastatic carcinoma. She and her family sued Dr. Minkina and several others in June 2007. The patient died in 2008.
ProMutual settled the case against the defendants for $500,000 in 2008, allocating 30% of the liability to Dr. Minkina, 10% of the nurse practitioner, 60% to the medical practice, and no liability to the other doctors named. ProMutual contended Dr. Minkina bore more responsibility than the other health care professionals named for the delayed diagnosis because of causation factors and standard of care violations, namely that Dr. Minkina should have pursued a biopsy for the patient.
Dr. Minkina sued the insurer in 2012, claiming chiefly that the insurer allocated an unjustifiably high percentage of liability to her because she was no longer insured and because the company had an economic incentive to allocate a disproportionate percentage of responsibility and damages.
A lower court initially dismissed Dr. Minkina’s suit, but the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court in 2015 overturned that decision, ruling the case could move forward. In 2018, the superior court agreed Dr. Minkina had a valid bad faith claim, stating that she had provided information about ProMutual’s conduct from which “a reasonable juror could infer the defendant’s bad faith in connection with its settling the underlying malpractice suit, including the allocation of liability.
But Judge Squires-Lee ruled that trial evidence showed that ProMutual did not act for its own benefit or favor other insureds over Dr. Minkina. The judge wrote that the insurer satisfied its contractual and legal obligations when defending the underlying legal claim.
Dr. Minkina said she was disappointed with the ruling, but that she is considering her legal avenues.
“[The] judge’s decision in my case against ProMutual is obviously disappointing, but it is not the first time [the] trial court decided against me in this case,” Dr. Minkina said in an interview. “It is a battle between David and Goliath, [a] single physician against [a] $3.6 billion insurance company with unlimited resources. The decision has just been announced and it is voluminous. I am still reading it and evaluating my options with my attorneys, but it is not the end of the road yet.”
ProMutual declined to comment about the decision.
A judge has sided with a medical malpractice insurer in a legal challenge that accused the company of misallocating blame among physicians after a liability settlement.
In a Sept. 27 decision, Judge Debra Squires-Lee of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court ruled that Medical Professional Mutual Insurance Company (ProMutual) acted reasonably when it settled a medical liability claim for $500,000 against several health providers and allocated responsibility for 30% of the settlement ($150,000) to internist Nataly Minkina, MD. ProMutual was well within its rights and obligations when it settled the underlying claim and did not act in bad faith when assigning responsibility in the case, Judge Squires-Lee wrote in her 49-page ruling.
“At its heart, this case is about a multiple defendant malpractice lawsuit with finger pointing by Dr. Minkina against her codefendants and others, and a disagreement about ProMutual’s ultimate determination about how to allocate a global settlement with the plaintiffs amongst ProMutual’s insureds,” Judge Squires-Lee wrote in the decision. “Dr. Minkina strongly believes that she did not fail [the patient], that she acted reasonably, and that her treatment of [the patient] satisfied the standard of care. She also questions why ProMutual failed to allocate liability in the [patient’s] suit to other physicians. However ... the question for this court is whether ProMutual committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in its settlement and allocation of its settlement. I conclude that ProMutual did not.”
The case stems from a patient’s lawsuit against Dr. Minkina and several others at Blue Hills Medical Associates in Braintree, Mass. The patient alleged that the health care professionals were responsible for a missed breast cancer diagnosis. Dr. Minkina saw the patient just once in 2002 while covering for another doctor. During the visit, she confirmed some nodularity in the 55-year-old women’s breast and referred her for a mammogram and an ultrasound. A radiologist twice reported no abnormalities, which Dr. Minkina said she relayed to the patient. Dr. Minkina left the practice shortly after.
The patient visited the practice several more times and was referred for another mammogram in 2006, the results of which revealed some signs of malignancy, according to court documents. However, a nurse at the practice misread, misunderstood, or overlooked the signs and recorded that “the benign breast condition had no changes,” according to court transcripts. Later that year, the patient visited the practice complaining of headaches and a droopy eye at which time her primary care physician diagnosed sinusitis and prescribed antibiotics. In 2007, the patient underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the brain and the breast, which revealed widespread metastatic carcinoma. She and her family sued Dr. Minkina and several others in June 2007. The patient died in 2008.
ProMutual settled the case against the defendants for $500,000 in 2008, allocating 30% of the liability to Dr. Minkina, 10% of the nurse practitioner, 60% to the medical practice, and no liability to the other doctors named. ProMutual contended Dr. Minkina bore more responsibility than the other health care professionals named for the delayed diagnosis because of causation factors and standard of care violations, namely that Dr. Minkina should have pursued a biopsy for the patient.
Dr. Minkina sued the insurer in 2012, claiming chiefly that the insurer allocated an unjustifiably high percentage of liability to her because she was no longer insured and because the company had an economic incentive to allocate a disproportionate percentage of responsibility and damages.
A lower court initially dismissed Dr. Minkina’s suit, but the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court in 2015 overturned that decision, ruling the case could move forward. In 2018, the superior court agreed Dr. Minkina had a valid bad faith claim, stating that she had provided information about ProMutual’s conduct from which “a reasonable juror could infer the defendant’s bad faith in connection with its settling the underlying malpractice suit, including the allocation of liability.
But Judge Squires-Lee ruled that trial evidence showed that ProMutual did not act for its own benefit or favor other insureds over Dr. Minkina. The judge wrote that the insurer satisfied its contractual and legal obligations when defending the underlying legal claim.
Dr. Minkina said she was disappointed with the ruling, but that she is considering her legal avenues.
“[The] judge’s decision in my case against ProMutual is obviously disappointing, but it is not the first time [the] trial court decided against me in this case,” Dr. Minkina said in an interview. “It is a battle between David and Goliath, [a] single physician against [a] $3.6 billion insurance company with unlimited resources. The decision has just been announced and it is voluminous. I am still reading it and evaluating my options with my attorneys, but it is not the end of the road yet.”
ProMutual declined to comment about the decision.
Hypoxia-related discoveries net Nobel Prize
Three researchers have won the 2019 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine “for their discoveries of how cells sense and adapt to oxygen availability.”
William G. Kaelin Jr., MD; Sir Peter J. Ratcliffe, MB ChB, MD; and Gregg L. Semenza, MD, PhD, described the molecular machinery that regulates gene activity in response to oxygen levels.
Their work “established the basis for our understanding of how oxygen levels affect cellular metabolism and physiological function” and “paved the way for promising new strategies to fight anemia, cancer, and many other diseases,” according to a statement by The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet.
Dr. Semenza, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, studied how the erythropoietin (EPO) gene is regulated by oxygen levels. Via experiments in mice, he identified DNA segments next to the EPO gene that mediate the response to hypoxia.
Dr. Ratcliffe, of the University of Oxford (England) and the Francis Crick Institute in London, also studied oxygen-dependent regulation of the EPO gene. Both his and Dr. Semenza’s groups found the oxygen-sensing mechanism was present in nearly all tissues.
Dr. Semenza also discovered a protein complex, hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF), that binds to the identified DNA segments in an oxygen-dependent manner. Additional investigation revealed that HIF consists of two transcription factors, HIF-1a and ARNT.
Several research groups found that HIF-1a is protected from degradation in hypoxia. In low-oxygen conditions, the amount of HIF-1a increases so it can bind to and regulate EPO and other genes with HIF-binding DNA segments. However, at normal oxygen levels, ubiquitin is added to HIF-1a, tagging it for degradation in the proteasome. It wasn’t clear how ubiquitin binds to HIF-1a in an oxygen-dependent manner, but Dr. Kaelin’s work provided some insight.
Dr. Kaelin, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, was researching von Hippel-Lindau’s (VHL) syndrome, an inherited disorder in which mutations can lead to tumors in multiple organs. He found the VHL gene encodes a protein that prevents cancer onset, and cancer cells without a functional VHL gene express high levels of hypoxia-regulated genes.
Research by other groups showed that VHL is part of a complex that labels proteins with ubiquitin, tagging them for degradation. Dr. Ratcliffe and his group found that VHL is required for the degradation of HIF-1a at normal oxygen levels.
Dr. Kaelin’s and Dr. Ratcliffe’s groups also showed that, under normal oxygen conditions, hydroxyl groups are added at two locations in HIF-1a. This modification – prolyl hydroxylation – allows VHL to bind to HIF-1a. So the researchers found that normal oxygen levels control HIF-1a degradation with the help of prolyl hydroxylases.
Additional research by Dr. Ratcliffe’s group and others revealed the specific prolyl hydroxylases involved in HIF-1a degradation. The researchers also found that HIF-1a’s gene-activating function was regulated by oxygen-dependent hydroxylation.
This work has improved the understanding of how different oxygen levels regulate physiological processes. In particular, oxygen sensing is essential for erythropoiesis, so these findings have implications for the treatment of anemia.
“There are several drugs that are now in clinical trials that serve to increase HIF activity and, as a result, will increase the production of erythropoietin and stimulate red blood cell production,” Dr. Semenza said in an interview after the announcement of his Nobel win. “These are all small molecules that can be given by mouth, and that may be a great convenience for patients who, at the present time, may require injections of recombinant human erythropoietin.”
Three researchers have won the 2019 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine “for their discoveries of how cells sense and adapt to oxygen availability.”
William G. Kaelin Jr., MD; Sir Peter J. Ratcliffe, MB ChB, MD; and Gregg L. Semenza, MD, PhD, described the molecular machinery that regulates gene activity in response to oxygen levels.
Their work “established the basis for our understanding of how oxygen levels affect cellular metabolism and physiological function” and “paved the way for promising new strategies to fight anemia, cancer, and many other diseases,” according to a statement by The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet.
Dr. Semenza, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, studied how the erythropoietin (EPO) gene is regulated by oxygen levels. Via experiments in mice, he identified DNA segments next to the EPO gene that mediate the response to hypoxia.
Dr. Ratcliffe, of the University of Oxford (England) and the Francis Crick Institute in London, also studied oxygen-dependent regulation of the EPO gene. Both his and Dr. Semenza’s groups found the oxygen-sensing mechanism was present in nearly all tissues.
Dr. Semenza also discovered a protein complex, hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF), that binds to the identified DNA segments in an oxygen-dependent manner. Additional investigation revealed that HIF consists of two transcription factors, HIF-1a and ARNT.
Several research groups found that HIF-1a is protected from degradation in hypoxia. In low-oxygen conditions, the amount of HIF-1a increases so it can bind to and regulate EPO and other genes with HIF-binding DNA segments. However, at normal oxygen levels, ubiquitin is added to HIF-1a, tagging it for degradation in the proteasome. It wasn’t clear how ubiquitin binds to HIF-1a in an oxygen-dependent manner, but Dr. Kaelin’s work provided some insight.
Dr. Kaelin, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, was researching von Hippel-Lindau’s (VHL) syndrome, an inherited disorder in which mutations can lead to tumors in multiple organs. He found the VHL gene encodes a protein that prevents cancer onset, and cancer cells without a functional VHL gene express high levels of hypoxia-regulated genes.
Research by other groups showed that VHL is part of a complex that labels proteins with ubiquitin, tagging them for degradation. Dr. Ratcliffe and his group found that VHL is required for the degradation of HIF-1a at normal oxygen levels.
Dr. Kaelin’s and Dr. Ratcliffe’s groups also showed that, under normal oxygen conditions, hydroxyl groups are added at two locations in HIF-1a. This modification – prolyl hydroxylation – allows VHL to bind to HIF-1a. So the researchers found that normal oxygen levels control HIF-1a degradation with the help of prolyl hydroxylases.
Additional research by Dr. Ratcliffe’s group and others revealed the specific prolyl hydroxylases involved in HIF-1a degradation. The researchers also found that HIF-1a’s gene-activating function was regulated by oxygen-dependent hydroxylation.
This work has improved the understanding of how different oxygen levels regulate physiological processes. In particular, oxygen sensing is essential for erythropoiesis, so these findings have implications for the treatment of anemia.
“There are several drugs that are now in clinical trials that serve to increase HIF activity and, as a result, will increase the production of erythropoietin and stimulate red blood cell production,” Dr. Semenza said in an interview after the announcement of his Nobel win. “These are all small molecules that can be given by mouth, and that may be a great convenience for patients who, at the present time, may require injections of recombinant human erythropoietin.”
Three researchers have won the 2019 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine “for their discoveries of how cells sense and adapt to oxygen availability.”
William G. Kaelin Jr., MD; Sir Peter J. Ratcliffe, MB ChB, MD; and Gregg L. Semenza, MD, PhD, described the molecular machinery that regulates gene activity in response to oxygen levels.
Their work “established the basis for our understanding of how oxygen levels affect cellular metabolism and physiological function” and “paved the way for promising new strategies to fight anemia, cancer, and many other diseases,” according to a statement by The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet.
Dr. Semenza, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, studied how the erythropoietin (EPO) gene is regulated by oxygen levels. Via experiments in mice, he identified DNA segments next to the EPO gene that mediate the response to hypoxia.
Dr. Ratcliffe, of the University of Oxford (England) and the Francis Crick Institute in London, also studied oxygen-dependent regulation of the EPO gene. Both his and Dr. Semenza’s groups found the oxygen-sensing mechanism was present in nearly all tissues.
Dr. Semenza also discovered a protein complex, hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF), that binds to the identified DNA segments in an oxygen-dependent manner. Additional investigation revealed that HIF consists of two transcription factors, HIF-1a and ARNT.
Several research groups found that HIF-1a is protected from degradation in hypoxia. In low-oxygen conditions, the amount of HIF-1a increases so it can bind to and regulate EPO and other genes with HIF-binding DNA segments. However, at normal oxygen levels, ubiquitin is added to HIF-1a, tagging it for degradation in the proteasome. It wasn’t clear how ubiquitin binds to HIF-1a in an oxygen-dependent manner, but Dr. Kaelin’s work provided some insight.
Dr. Kaelin, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, was researching von Hippel-Lindau’s (VHL) syndrome, an inherited disorder in which mutations can lead to tumors in multiple organs. He found the VHL gene encodes a protein that prevents cancer onset, and cancer cells without a functional VHL gene express high levels of hypoxia-regulated genes.
Research by other groups showed that VHL is part of a complex that labels proteins with ubiquitin, tagging them for degradation. Dr. Ratcliffe and his group found that VHL is required for the degradation of HIF-1a at normal oxygen levels.
Dr. Kaelin’s and Dr. Ratcliffe’s groups also showed that, under normal oxygen conditions, hydroxyl groups are added at two locations in HIF-1a. This modification – prolyl hydroxylation – allows VHL to bind to HIF-1a. So the researchers found that normal oxygen levels control HIF-1a degradation with the help of prolyl hydroxylases.
Additional research by Dr. Ratcliffe’s group and others revealed the specific prolyl hydroxylases involved in HIF-1a degradation. The researchers also found that HIF-1a’s gene-activating function was regulated by oxygen-dependent hydroxylation.
This work has improved the understanding of how different oxygen levels regulate physiological processes. In particular, oxygen sensing is essential for erythropoiesis, so these findings have implications for the treatment of anemia.
“There are several drugs that are now in clinical trials that serve to increase HIF activity and, as a result, will increase the production of erythropoietin and stimulate red blood cell production,” Dr. Semenza said in an interview after the announcement of his Nobel win. “These are all small molecules that can be given by mouth, and that may be a great convenience for patients who, at the present time, may require injections of recombinant human erythropoietin.”
Small-practice neurologists still have a role to play
Another solo-practice neurologist and I were talking last week. He’s understandably worried about the local hospital starting construction on a new “neuroscience center” down the street from us. They have ambitious plans for it, which apparently don’t include those of us who’ve served the community for 20-30 years.
Whatever. I’ve been in a large practice before, and don’t want to be a part of one again.
His concern, which I have, too, is that the hospital center will drive us little guys out of business. This seems to be a common medical practice model these days.
I hope not. I’ve been doing this for a long time, and am happy with my little world. I also believe, perhaps naively, that there’s still a place for a small practice.
My staff and I know my patients. We’re generally tuned in to who needs what, or how much time. We return all calls within a few hours (or less) and try be on top of getting medication refills and records requests done the same day they come in.
While a large practice has some advantages, based on my time with one I’d have to say we didn’t do those things as well there. Messages often weren’t relayed, or were sent to the wrong doctor. Here there’s only me.
I may not make as much, but my appointment times and intervals aren’t dictated by an accountant. This allows me to generally spend as much time as needed with each person and not feel rushed as the day goes on. I hope patients still desire that in a physician, as opposed to a place advertising “20 neurologists, no waiting!” on a sign that would fit in on the Vegas strip.
Obviously, I can’t control what the hospital will do. I can only manage my own little world. I’ll continue doing that as best I can, as long as I’m able.
Time spent worrying about things I can’t change isn’t productive and is bad for one’s blood pressure. So I’ll focus on what I can do, and try not to worry about the rest.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Another solo-practice neurologist and I were talking last week. He’s understandably worried about the local hospital starting construction on a new “neuroscience center” down the street from us. They have ambitious plans for it, which apparently don’t include those of us who’ve served the community for 20-30 years.
Whatever. I’ve been in a large practice before, and don’t want to be a part of one again.
His concern, which I have, too, is that the hospital center will drive us little guys out of business. This seems to be a common medical practice model these days.
I hope not. I’ve been doing this for a long time, and am happy with my little world. I also believe, perhaps naively, that there’s still a place for a small practice.
My staff and I know my patients. We’re generally tuned in to who needs what, or how much time. We return all calls within a few hours (or less) and try be on top of getting medication refills and records requests done the same day they come in.
While a large practice has some advantages, based on my time with one I’d have to say we didn’t do those things as well there. Messages often weren’t relayed, or were sent to the wrong doctor. Here there’s only me.
I may not make as much, but my appointment times and intervals aren’t dictated by an accountant. This allows me to generally spend as much time as needed with each person and not feel rushed as the day goes on. I hope patients still desire that in a physician, as opposed to a place advertising “20 neurologists, no waiting!” on a sign that would fit in on the Vegas strip.
Obviously, I can’t control what the hospital will do. I can only manage my own little world. I’ll continue doing that as best I can, as long as I’m able.
Time spent worrying about things I can’t change isn’t productive and is bad for one’s blood pressure. So I’ll focus on what I can do, and try not to worry about the rest.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Another solo-practice neurologist and I were talking last week. He’s understandably worried about the local hospital starting construction on a new “neuroscience center” down the street from us. They have ambitious plans for it, which apparently don’t include those of us who’ve served the community for 20-30 years.
Whatever. I’ve been in a large practice before, and don’t want to be a part of one again.
His concern, which I have, too, is that the hospital center will drive us little guys out of business. This seems to be a common medical practice model these days.
I hope not. I’ve been doing this for a long time, and am happy with my little world. I also believe, perhaps naively, that there’s still a place for a small practice.
My staff and I know my patients. We’re generally tuned in to who needs what, or how much time. We return all calls within a few hours (or less) and try be on top of getting medication refills and records requests done the same day they come in.
While a large practice has some advantages, based on my time with one I’d have to say we didn’t do those things as well there. Messages often weren’t relayed, or were sent to the wrong doctor. Here there’s only me.
I may not make as much, but my appointment times and intervals aren’t dictated by an accountant. This allows me to generally spend as much time as needed with each person and not feel rushed as the day goes on. I hope patients still desire that in a physician, as opposed to a place advertising “20 neurologists, no waiting!” on a sign that would fit in on the Vegas strip.
Obviously, I can’t control what the hospital will do. I can only manage my own little world. I’ll continue doing that as best I can, as long as I’m able.
Time spent worrying about things I can’t change isn’t productive and is bad for one’s blood pressure. So I’ll focus on what I can do, and try not to worry about the rest.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Viral cause of acute flaccid myelitis eludes detection
A study of 305 cases of acute flaccid myelitis has found further evidence of a viral etiology but is yet to identify a single pathogen as the primary cause.
Writing in Pediatrics, researchers published an analysis of patients presenting with acute flaccid limb weakness from January 2015 to December 2017 across 43 states.
A total of 25 cases were judged as probable for acute flaccid myelitis (AFM) because they met clinical criteria and had a white blood cell count above 5 cells per mm3 in cerebrospinal fluid, while 193 were judged as confirmed cases based on the additional presence of spinal cord gray matter lesions on MRI.
Overall, 83% of patients had experienced fever, cough, runny nose, vomiting, and/or diarrhea for a median of 5 days before limb weakness began. Two-thirds of patients had experienced a respiratory illness, 62% had experienced a fever, and 29% had experienced gastrointestinal illness.
Overall, 47% of the 193 patients who had specimens tested at a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or non-CDC laboratory had a pathogen found at any site, 10% had a pathogen detected from a sterile site such as cerebrospinal fluid or sera, and 42% had a pathogen detected from a nonsterile site.
Among 72 patients who had serum specimens tested at the CDC, 2 were positive for enteroviruses. Among the 90 patients who had upper respiratory specimens tested, 36% were positive for either enteroviruses or rhinoviruses.
A number of stool specimens were also tested; 15% were positive for enteroviruses or rhinoviruses and one was positive for parechovirus.
Cerebrospinal fluid was tested in 170 patients, of which 4 were positive for enteroviruses. The testing also found adenovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, human herpesvirus 6, and mycoplasma in six patients. Sera testing of 123 patients found 9 were positive for enteroviruses, West Nile virus, mycoplasma, and coxsackievirus B.
“In our summary of national AFM surveillance from 2015 to 2017, we demonstrate that cases were widely distributed across the United States, the majority of cases occurred in late summer or fall, children were predominantly affected, there is a spectrum of clinical severity, and no single pathogen was identified as the primary cause of AFM,” wrote Tracy Ayers, PhD, from the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and coauthors. “We conclude that symptoms of a viral syndrome within the week before limb weakness, detection of viral pathogens from sterile and nonsterile sites from almost half of patients, and seasonality of AFM incidence, particularly during the 2016 peak year, strongly suggest a viral etiology, including [enteroviruses].”
The authors of an accompanying editorial noted that the clinical syndrome of acute flaccid paralysis caused by myelitis in the gray matter of the spinal cord has previously been associated with a range of viruses, including poliovirus, enteroviruses, and flaviviruses, so a single etiology to explain all cases would not be expected.
“The central question remains: What is driving seasonal biennial nationwide outbreaks of AFM since 2014?” wrote Kevin Messaca, MD, and colleagues from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
Two authors declared consultancies, grants, and research contracts with the pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were declared. One editorial author declared funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
SOURCE: Ayers T et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Oct 7. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1619.
*Updated 10/14/2019.
A study of 305 cases of acute flaccid myelitis has found further evidence of a viral etiology but is yet to identify a single pathogen as the primary cause.
Writing in Pediatrics, researchers published an analysis of patients presenting with acute flaccid limb weakness from January 2015 to December 2017 across 43 states.
A total of 25 cases were judged as probable for acute flaccid myelitis (AFM) because they met clinical criteria and had a white blood cell count above 5 cells per mm3 in cerebrospinal fluid, while 193 were judged as confirmed cases based on the additional presence of spinal cord gray matter lesions on MRI.
Overall, 83% of patients had experienced fever, cough, runny nose, vomiting, and/or diarrhea for a median of 5 days before limb weakness began. Two-thirds of patients had experienced a respiratory illness, 62% had experienced a fever, and 29% had experienced gastrointestinal illness.
Overall, 47% of the 193 patients who had specimens tested at a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or non-CDC laboratory had a pathogen found at any site, 10% had a pathogen detected from a sterile site such as cerebrospinal fluid or sera, and 42% had a pathogen detected from a nonsterile site.
Among 72 patients who had serum specimens tested at the CDC, 2 were positive for enteroviruses. Among the 90 patients who had upper respiratory specimens tested, 36% were positive for either enteroviruses or rhinoviruses.
A number of stool specimens were also tested; 15% were positive for enteroviruses or rhinoviruses and one was positive for parechovirus.
Cerebrospinal fluid was tested in 170 patients, of which 4 were positive for enteroviruses. The testing also found adenovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, human herpesvirus 6, and mycoplasma in six patients. Sera testing of 123 patients found 9 were positive for enteroviruses, West Nile virus, mycoplasma, and coxsackievirus B.
“In our summary of national AFM surveillance from 2015 to 2017, we demonstrate that cases were widely distributed across the United States, the majority of cases occurred in late summer or fall, children were predominantly affected, there is a spectrum of clinical severity, and no single pathogen was identified as the primary cause of AFM,” wrote Tracy Ayers, PhD, from the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and coauthors. “We conclude that symptoms of a viral syndrome within the week before limb weakness, detection of viral pathogens from sterile and nonsterile sites from almost half of patients, and seasonality of AFM incidence, particularly during the 2016 peak year, strongly suggest a viral etiology, including [enteroviruses].”
The authors of an accompanying editorial noted that the clinical syndrome of acute flaccid paralysis caused by myelitis in the gray matter of the spinal cord has previously been associated with a range of viruses, including poliovirus, enteroviruses, and flaviviruses, so a single etiology to explain all cases would not be expected.
“The central question remains: What is driving seasonal biennial nationwide outbreaks of AFM since 2014?” wrote Kevin Messaca, MD, and colleagues from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
Two authors declared consultancies, grants, and research contracts with the pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were declared. One editorial author declared funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
SOURCE: Ayers T et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Oct 7. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1619.
*Updated 10/14/2019.
A study of 305 cases of acute flaccid myelitis has found further evidence of a viral etiology but is yet to identify a single pathogen as the primary cause.
Writing in Pediatrics, researchers published an analysis of patients presenting with acute flaccid limb weakness from January 2015 to December 2017 across 43 states.
A total of 25 cases were judged as probable for acute flaccid myelitis (AFM) because they met clinical criteria and had a white blood cell count above 5 cells per mm3 in cerebrospinal fluid, while 193 were judged as confirmed cases based on the additional presence of spinal cord gray matter lesions on MRI.
Overall, 83% of patients had experienced fever, cough, runny nose, vomiting, and/or diarrhea for a median of 5 days before limb weakness began. Two-thirds of patients had experienced a respiratory illness, 62% had experienced a fever, and 29% had experienced gastrointestinal illness.
Overall, 47% of the 193 patients who had specimens tested at a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or non-CDC laboratory had a pathogen found at any site, 10% had a pathogen detected from a sterile site such as cerebrospinal fluid or sera, and 42% had a pathogen detected from a nonsterile site.
Among 72 patients who had serum specimens tested at the CDC, 2 were positive for enteroviruses. Among the 90 patients who had upper respiratory specimens tested, 36% were positive for either enteroviruses or rhinoviruses.
A number of stool specimens were also tested; 15% were positive for enteroviruses or rhinoviruses and one was positive for parechovirus.
Cerebrospinal fluid was tested in 170 patients, of which 4 were positive for enteroviruses. The testing also found adenovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, human herpesvirus 6, and mycoplasma in six patients. Sera testing of 123 patients found 9 were positive for enteroviruses, West Nile virus, mycoplasma, and coxsackievirus B.
“In our summary of national AFM surveillance from 2015 to 2017, we demonstrate that cases were widely distributed across the United States, the majority of cases occurred in late summer or fall, children were predominantly affected, there is a spectrum of clinical severity, and no single pathogen was identified as the primary cause of AFM,” wrote Tracy Ayers, PhD, from the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and coauthors. “We conclude that symptoms of a viral syndrome within the week before limb weakness, detection of viral pathogens from sterile and nonsterile sites from almost half of patients, and seasonality of AFM incidence, particularly during the 2016 peak year, strongly suggest a viral etiology, including [enteroviruses].”
The authors of an accompanying editorial noted that the clinical syndrome of acute flaccid paralysis caused by myelitis in the gray matter of the spinal cord has previously been associated with a range of viruses, including poliovirus, enteroviruses, and flaviviruses, so a single etiology to explain all cases would not be expected.
“The central question remains: What is driving seasonal biennial nationwide outbreaks of AFM since 2014?” wrote Kevin Messaca, MD, and colleagues from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
Two authors declared consultancies, grants, and research contracts with the pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were declared. One editorial author declared funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
SOURCE: Ayers T et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Oct 7. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1619.
*Updated 10/14/2019.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Key clinical point: Acute flaccid myelitis shows a strong suggestion of viral etiology but a single causal virus is not identified.
Major finding: Patients with acute flaccid myelitis show infection with a range of viruses including enteroviruses.
Study details: A study of 305 cases of acute flaccid myelitis in the United States.
Disclosures: Two authors declared consultancies, grants, and research contracts with the pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
Source: Ayers T et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Oct 7. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1619.
Coming soon!
Check back later this month for top news from the 2019 AANEM Annual Meeting in Austin.
Check back later this month for top news from the 2019 AANEM Annual Meeting in Austin.
Check back later this month for top news from the 2019 AANEM Annual Meeting in Austin.
Tocilizumab beat azathioprine for NMOSD
STOCKHOLM – according to data reported at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
The tocilizumab versus azathioprine in highly relapsing neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (TANGO) trial, explained senior investigator Fu-Dong Shi, MD, PhD, tracked the time to first NMOSD relapse for patients randomized either to tocilizumab or azathioprine. After 60 weeks of participation in the head-to-head trial, 86% of patients receiving tocilizumab remained relapse-free, compared with 56.9% of those on azathioprine. By 90 weeks of therapy, the relapse-free rate held at 86% for those receiving tocilizumab, compared with 48.1% for those on azathioprine, for a 76.4% relative reduction in risk of relapse.
Patients with concomitant autoimmune disease saw particular benefit from tocilizumab compared with azathioprine. On tocilizumab, 78.8% of those with concomitant autoimmune disease remained relapse-free at 90 weeks, a rate that did not differ significantly from that seen in those without other autoimmune disease. However, 22.3% of those with concomitant autoimmune disease who received azathioprine remained relapse-free at 90 weeks, compared with 63.5% of those without autoimmune disease.
Dr. Shi, of the Tianjin (China) Medical University General Hospital, explained that there was limited evidence for the advantage of newer disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) over such older medications as azathioprine to treat NMOSD. Therefore, he said, he and other investigators in the Chinese Medical Network for Neuroinflammation (CMNN), including first author Chao Zhang, MD, initiated a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial that compared tocilizumab to azathioprine for highly relapsing NMOSD.
A total of 118 patients were enrolled. To participate, patients had to meet the 2015 international consensus criteria for NMOSD, and have had at least two relapses in the past year or three relapses within the preceding 2 years.
After a washout period, participants were randomized 1:1 to receive daily oral azathioprine dosed at 2-3 mg/kg or intravenous tocilizumab dosed at 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks. Participants continued on the assigned regimen for at least 60 weeks.
Secondary endpoints included 12-week confirmed disability progression. Here, 35.8% of those on azathioprine saw disability progression, compared with 9.9% on tocilizumab, for a 72.5% relative risk reduction. Serum aquaporin 4-IgG titers fell further for those taking tocilizumab.
In terms of safety, 83% of those on azathioprine and 61% of those receiving tocilizumab had a treatment-related adverse event, as determined by investigator assessment. About half of patients in each group experienced moderate adverse events, and about 90% had mild adverse events in each group. However, there were twice as many severe adverse events among those taking azathioprine. There was one NMOSD-related death in each group.
Subgroup analyses looked at baseline disability scores, number of previous relapses, disease duration, and age at randomization. None of these variables made a difference in the statistically better performance of tocilizumab compared with azathioprine, with hazard ratios ranging from 0.076 to 0.343 in favor of tocilizumab for all subgroups.
Patients were almost all female (92% overall) and about 47 years old at baseline, with a 6-year history of NMOSD.
Overall, 83% of the cohort had experienced optic neuritis over the preceding 2 years, and 94% had experienced acute myelitis. Other manifestations of NMOSD, such as acute brainstem syndrome and symptomatic cerebral syndrome, were much less frequent, occurring in 4%-30% of patients.
Most patients (71%) had been on oral corticosteroids before the washout period, and 34% had been taking mycophenolate mofetil. Azathioprine was taken by 44% of patients at baseline.
Additional data captured during the TANGO trial are being analyzed and will be reported at a later date, said Dr. Shi. These include optical coherence tomography and visual evoked potentials; magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, spinal cord, and optic nerve; and tracking serum B-cell subpopulations. He added that the investigators are continuing long-term, real-world follow-up of the TANGO patient cohort.
Dr. Shi acknowledged that TANGO was limited by the lack of an independent data monitoring committee and the open-label nature of the study.
The study was funded by Tianjin Medical University; Capital Medical University, Beijing; and the National Science Foundation of China. Dr. Shi and coauthors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Zhang C et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract 140.
STOCKHOLM – according to data reported at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
The tocilizumab versus azathioprine in highly relapsing neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (TANGO) trial, explained senior investigator Fu-Dong Shi, MD, PhD, tracked the time to first NMOSD relapse for patients randomized either to tocilizumab or azathioprine. After 60 weeks of participation in the head-to-head trial, 86% of patients receiving tocilizumab remained relapse-free, compared with 56.9% of those on azathioprine. By 90 weeks of therapy, the relapse-free rate held at 86% for those receiving tocilizumab, compared with 48.1% for those on azathioprine, for a 76.4% relative reduction in risk of relapse.
Patients with concomitant autoimmune disease saw particular benefit from tocilizumab compared with azathioprine. On tocilizumab, 78.8% of those with concomitant autoimmune disease remained relapse-free at 90 weeks, a rate that did not differ significantly from that seen in those without other autoimmune disease. However, 22.3% of those with concomitant autoimmune disease who received azathioprine remained relapse-free at 90 weeks, compared with 63.5% of those without autoimmune disease.
Dr. Shi, of the Tianjin (China) Medical University General Hospital, explained that there was limited evidence for the advantage of newer disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) over such older medications as azathioprine to treat NMOSD. Therefore, he said, he and other investigators in the Chinese Medical Network for Neuroinflammation (CMNN), including first author Chao Zhang, MD, initiated a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial that compared tocilizumab to azathioprine for highly relapsing NMOSD.
A total of 118 patients were enrolled. To participate, patients had to meet the 2015 international consensus criteria for NMOSD, and have had at least two relapses in the past year or three relapses within the preceding 2 years.
After a washout period, participants were randomized 1:1 to receive daily oral azathioprine dosed at 2-3 mg/kg or intravenous tocilizumab dosed at 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks. Participants continued on the assigned regimen for at least 60 weeks.
Secondary endpoints included 12-week confirmed disability progression. Here, 35.8% of those on azathioprine saw disability progression, compared with 9.9% on tocilizumab, for a 72.5% relative risk reduction. Serum aquaporin 4-IgG titers fell further for those taking tocilizumab.
In terms of safety, 83% of those on azathioprine and 61% of those receiving tocilizumab had a treatment-related adverse event, as determined by investigator assessment. About half of patients in each group experienced moderate adverse events, and about 90% had mild adverse events in each group. However, there were twice as many severe adverse events among those taking azathioprine. There was one NMOSD-related death in each group.
Subgroup analyses looked at baseline disability scores, number of previous relapses, disease duration, and age at randomization. None of these variables made a difference in the statistically better performance of tocilizumab compared with azathioprine, with hazard ratios ranging from 0.076 to 0.343 in favor of tocilizumab for all subgroups.
Patients were almost all female (92% overall) and about 47 years old at baseline, with a 6-year history of NMOSD.
Overall, 83% of the cohort had experienced optic neuritis over the preceding 2 years, and 94% had experienced acute myelitis. Other manifestations of NMOSD, such as acute brainstem syndrome and symptomatic cerebral syndrome, were much less frequent, occurring in 4%-30% of patients.
Most patients (71%) had been on oral corticosteroids before the washout period, and 34% had been taking mycophenolate mofetil. Azathioprine was taken by 44% of patients at baseline.
Additional data captured during the TANGO trial are being analyzed and will be reported at a later date, said Dr. Shi. These include optical coherence tomography and visual evoked potentials; magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, spinal cord, and optic nerve; and tracking serum B-cell subpopulations. He added that the investigators are continuing long-term, real-world follow-up of the TANGO patient cohort.
Dr. Shi acknowledged that TANGO was limited by the lack of an independent data monitoring committee and the open-label nature of the study.
The study was funded by Tianjin Medical University; Capital Medical University, Beijing; and the National Science Foundation of China. Dr. Shi and coauthors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Zhang C et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract 140.
STOCKHOLM – according to data reported at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
The tocilizumab versus azathioprine in highly relapsing neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (TANGO) trial, explained senior investigator Fu-Dong Shi, MD, PhD, tracked the time to first NMOSD relapse for patients randomized either to tocilizumab or azathioprine. After 60 weeks of participation in the head-to-head trial, 86% of patients receiving tocilizumab remained relapse-free, compared with 56.9% of those on azathioprine. By 90 weeks of therapy, the relapse-free rate held at 86% for those receiving tocilizumab, compared with 48.1% for those on azathioprine, for a 76.4% relative reduction in risk of relapse.
Patients with concomitant autoimmune disease saw particular benefit from tocilizumab compared with azathioprine. On tocilizumab, 78.8% of those with concomitant autoimmune disease remained relapse-free at 90 weeks, a rate that did not differ significantly from that seen in those without other autoimmune disease. However, 22.3% of those with concomitant autoimmune disease who received azathioprine remained relapse-free at 90 weeks, compared with 63.5% of those without autoimmune disease.
Dr. Shi, of the Tianjin (China) Medical University General Hospital, explained that there was limited evidence for the advantage of newer disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) over such older medications as azathioprine to treat NMOSD. Therefore, he said, he and other investigators in the Chinese Medical Network for Neuroinflammation (CMNN), including first author Chao Zhang, MD, initiated a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial that compared tocilizumab to azathioprine for highly relapsing NMOSD.
A total of 118 patients were enrolled. To participate, patients had to meet the 2015 international consensus criteria for NMOSD, and have had at least two relapses in the past year or three relapses within the preceding 2 years.
After a washout period, participants were randomized 1:1 to receive daily oral azathioprine dosed at 2-3 mg/kg or intravenous tocilizumab dosed at 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks. Participants continued on the assigned regimen for at least 60 weeks.
Secondary endpoints included 12-week confirmed disability progression. Here, 35.8% of those on azathioprine saw disability progression, compared with 9.9% on tocilizumab, for a 72.5% relative risk reduction. Serum aquaporin 4-IgG titers fell further for those taking tocilizumab.
In terms of safety, 83% of those on azathioprine and 61% of those receiving tocilizumab had a treatment-related adverse event, as determined by investigator assessment. About half of patients in each group experienced moderate adverse events, and about 90% had mild adverse events in each group. However, there were twice as many severe adverse events among those taking azathioprine. There was one NMOSD-related death in each group.
Subgroup analyses looked at baseline disability scores, number of previous relapses, disease duration, and age at randomization. None of these variables made a difference in the statistically better performance of tocilizumab compared with azathioprine, with hazard ratios ranging from 0.076 to 0.343 in favor of tocilizumab for all subgroups.
Patients were almost all female (92% overall) and about 47 years old at baseline, with a 6-year history of NMOSD.
Overall, 83% of the cohort had experienced optic neuritis over the preceding 2 years, and 94% had experienced acute myelitis. Other manifestations of NMOSD, such as acute brainstem syndrome and symptomatic cerebral syndrome, were much less frequent, occurring in 4%-30% of patients.
Most patients (71%) had been on oral corticosteroids before the washout period, and 34% had been taking mycophenolate mofetil. Azathioprine was taken by 44% of patients at baseline.
Additional data captured during the TANGO trial are being analyzed and will be reported at a later date, said Dr. Shi. These include optical coherence tomography and visual evoked potentials; magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, spinal cord, and optic nerve; and tracking serum B-cell subpopulations. He added that the investigators are continuing long-term, real-world follow-up of the TANGO patient cohort.
Dr. Shi acknowledged that TANGO was limited by the lack of an independent data monitoring committee and the open-label nature of the study.
The study was funded by Tianjin Medical University; Capital Medical University, Beijing; and the National Science Foundation of China. Dr. Shi and coauthors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Zhang C et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract 140.
REPORTING FROM ECTRIMS 2019
Higher teen pregnancy risk in girls with ADHD
Teenage girls with ADHD may be at greater risk of pregnancy than their unaffected peers, which suggests they may benefit from targeted interventions to prevent teen pregnancy.
A Swedish nationwide cohort study published in JAMA Network Open examined data from 384,103 nulliparous women and girls who gave birth between 2007-2014, of whom, 6,410 (1.7%) had received treatment for ADHD.
While the overall rate of teenage births was 3%, the rate among women and girls with ADHD was 15.3%, which represents a greater than sixfold higher odds of giving birth below the age of 20 years (odds ratio, 6.23; 95% confidence interval, 5.80-6.68).
“Becoming a mother at such early age is associated with long-term adverse outcomes for both women and their children,” wrote Charlotte Skoglund, PhD, of the department of clinical neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and coauthors. “Consequently, our findings argue for an improvement in the standard of care for women and girls with ADHD, including active efforts to prevent teenage pregnancies and address comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions.”
The study also found women and girls with ADHD were significantly more likely to be underweight (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12-1.49) or have a body mass index greater than 40 kg/m2 (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.60-2.52) when compared with those without ADHD.
They were also six times more likely to smoke, were nearly seven times more likely to continue smoking into their third trimester of pregnancy, and had a 20-fold higher odds of alcohol and substance use disorder. Among individuals who had been diagnosed with ADHD, 7.6% continued to use stimulant and nonstimulant ADHD medication during pregnancy, and 16.4% used antidepressants during pregnancy.
Psychiatric comorbidities were also significantly more common among individuals with ADHD in the year preceding pregnancy, compared with those without ADHD. The authors saw a 17-fold higher odds of receiving a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, nearly 8-fold higher odds of a diagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder, and 22-fold higher odds of being diagnosed with emotionally unstable personality disorder among women and girls with ADHD versus those without.
The authors commented that antenatal care should focus on trying to reduce such obstetric risk factors in these women, but also pointed out that ADHD in women and girls was still underdiagnosed and undertreated.
Commenting on the association between ADHD and teenage pregnancy, the authors noted that women and girls with ADHD may be less likely to receive adequate contraceptive counseling and less likely to access, respond to, and act on counseling. They may also experience more adverse effects from hormonal contraceptives.
While Swedish youth clinics enable easier and low-cost access to counseling and contraception, the authors called for greater collaboration between psychiatric care clinics and specialized youth clinics to provide adequate care for women and girls with ADHD.
Three authors declared advisory board positions, grants, personal fees, and speakers’ fees from the pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Skoglund C et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.12463
Teenage girls with ADHD may be at greater risk of pregnancy than their unaffected peers, which suggests they may benefit from targeted interventions to prevent teen pregnancy.
A Swedish nationwide cohort study published in JAMA Network Open examined data from 384,103 nulliparous women and girls who gave birth between 2007-2014, of whom, 6,410 (1.7%) had received treatment for ADHD.
While the overall rate of teenage births was 3%, the rate among women and girls with ADHD was 15.3%, which represents a greater than sixfold higher odds of giving birth below the age of 20 years (odds ratio, 6.23; 95% confidence interval, 5.80-6.68).
“Becoming a mother at such early age is associated with long-term adverse outcomes for both women and their children,” wrote Charlotte Skoglund, PhD, of the department of clinical neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and coauthors. “Consequently, our findings argue for an improvement in the standard of care for women and girls with ADHD, including active efforts to prevent teenage pregnancies and address comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions.”
The study also found women and girls with ADHD were significantly more likely to be underweight (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12-1.49) or have a body mass index greater than 40 kg/m2 (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.60-2.52) when compared with those without ADHD.
They were also six times more likely to smoke, were nearly seven times more likely to continue smoking into their third trimester of pregnancy, and had a 20-fold higher odds of alcohol and substance use disorder. Among individuals who had been diagnosed with ADHD, 7.6% continued to use stimulant and nonstimulant ADHD medication during pregnancy, and 16.4% used antidepressants during pregnancy.
Psychiatric comorbidities were also significantly more common among individuals with ADHD in the year preceding pregnancy, compared with those without ADHD. The authors saw a 17-fold higher odds of receiving a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, nearly 8-fold higher odds of a diagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder, and 22-fold higher odds of being diagnosed with emotionally unstable personality disorder among women and girls with ADHD versus those without.
The authors commented that antenatal care should focus on trying to reduce such obstetric risk factors in these women, but also pointed out that ADHD in women and girls was still underdiagnosed and undertreated.
Commenting on the association between ADHD and teenage pregnancy, the authors noted that women and girls with ADHD may be less likely to receive adequate contraceptive counseling and less likely to access, respond to, and act on counseling. They may also experience more adverse effects from hormonal contraceptives.
While Swedish youth clinics enable easier and low-cost access to counseling and contraception, the authors called for greater collaboration between psychiatric care clinics and specialized youth clinics to provide adequate care for women and girls with ADHD.
Three authors declared advisory board positions, grants, personal fees, and speakers’ fees from the pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Skoglund C et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.12463
Teenage girls with ADHD may be at greater risk of pregnancy than their unaffected peers, which suggests they may benefit from targeted interventions to prevent teen pregnancy.
A Swedish nationwide cohort study published in JAMA Network Open examined data from 384,103 nulliparous women and girls who gave birth between 2007-2014, of whom, 6,410 (1.7%) had received treatment for ADHD.
While the overall rate of teenage births was 3%, the rate among women and girls with ADHD was 15.3%, which represents a greater than sixfold higher odds of giving birth below the age of 20 years (odds ratio, 6.23; 95% confidence interval, 5.80-6.68).
“Becoming a mother at such early age is associated with long-term adverse outcomes for both women and their children,” wrote Charlotte Skoglund, PhD, of the department of clinical neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and coauthors. “Consequently, our findings argue for an improvement in the standard of care for women and girls with ADHD, including active efforts to prevent teenage pregnancies and address comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions.”
The study also found women and girls with ADHD were significantly more likely to be underweight (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12-1.49) or have a body mass index greater than 40 kg/m2 (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.60-2.52) when compared with those without ADHD.
They were also six times more likely to smoke, were nearly seven times more likely to continue smoking into their third trimester of pregnancy, and had a 20-fold higher odds of alcohol and substance use disorder. Among individuals who had been diagnosed with ADHD, 7.6% continued to use stimulant and nonstimulant ADHD medication during pregnancy, and 16.4% used antidepressants during pregnancy.
Psychiatric comorbidities were also significantly more common among individuals with ADHD in the year preceding pregnancy, compared with those without ADHD. The authors saw a 17-fold higher odds of receiving a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, nearly 8-fold higher odds of a diagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder, and 22-fold higher odds of being diagnosed with emotionally unstable personality disorder among women and girls with ADHD versus those without.
The authors commented that antenatal care should focus on trying to reduce such obstetric risk factors in these women, but also pointed out that ADHD in women and girls was still underdiagnosed and undertreated.
Commenting on the association between ADHD and teenage pregnancy, the authors noted that women and girls with ADHD may be less likely to receive adequate contraceptive counseling and less likely to access, respond to, and act on counseling. They may also experience more adverse effects from hormonal contraceptives.
While Swedish youth clinics enable easier and low-cost access to counseling and contraception, the authors called for greater collaboration between psychiatric care clinics and specialized youth clinics to provide adequate care for women and girls with ADHD.
Three authors declared advisory board positions, grants, personal fees, and speakers’ fees from the pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Skoglund C et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.12463
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Medical boards change or consider amending mental health-related licensing questions
Delicia M. Haynes, MD, wants the Florida Board of Medicine to take another look at how its licensing applications query physicians about their mental health history. Her state’s board is one of several nationwide that has, in recent years, mulled whether the phrasing of its questions poses an unintended hurdle for physicians who need help for conditions such as depression.
The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) recommends limiting such queries, if they must be asked, to questions about potential current impairment. But the Florida license application takes a more sweeping approach that may discourage physicians from seeking treatment, Dr. Haynes, founder and CEO of Family First Health Center in Daytona Beach, Fla., said in a video. She describes herself as a direct primary care physician.
In the video, which was posted on YouTube in January, 2019, Dr. Haynes discussed her own experience with having been treated for depression and then needing to report that to the state board. Florida’s license application asks if physicians have been treated within the past 5 years for a mental disorder that has impaired the ability to practice medicine. Those who have had such a condition may need to give the board an explanation providing the names of the physicians, therapists, and counselors they have seen, as well as details and dates for the institutions where they received treatment.
State medical boards play a critical role in protecting people from physicians whose current mental health conditions may risk harming patients, Dr. Haynes said. But they must balance that against the consequences of overly intrusive questioning. Florida’s current application wording may deter physicians from seeking care if they develop conditions such as depression, she said.
“It’s the fear of what’s going to happen if I have to check yes,” Dr. Haynes said in her YouTube video. Physicians will wonder how getting treatment could put their license and their employment at risk, she added.
“It’s really important that [state medical boards] are asking the questions that matter and those questions are questions that talk about impairment, and not just having a history,” Dr. Haynes said.
Members of Florida’s board of medicine last year favorably discussed making such a change during a rules/legislative committee meeting, but have not yet implemented it. The board has postponed further discussion of this topic until its December meeting, said Brad Dalton, a spokesman for the Florida Department of Health.
Dr. Haynes said in an email that she will continue to press for changes in her state’s licensing application.
There’s been a wave of reconsideration of these kinds of questions, spurred by FSMB efforts, which included the board’s offering specific advice to state medical boards about questions on licensing applications as part of a set of recommendations on addressing physician wellness and burnout last year in a report.
Boards have the option of omitting or dropping specific inquiries about mental health. But if they choose to retain this question, FSMB recommends using this phrasing: “Are you currently suffering from any condition for which you are not being appropriately treated that impairs your judgment or that would otherwise adversely affect your ability to practice medicine in a competent, ethical and professional manner? (Yes/No)” the report says.
The staff of the Medical Board of California cited FSMB’s recommendation in a January 2019 report about revising the state’s approach to asking physicians about their mental health. In May 2019, the board voted unanimously to revise its questions on physicians’ mental health, narrowing its inquiry on the licensing application to focus on current impairment.
“There are many doctors who do not seek treatment or find it threatening to seek treatment, because they are concerned that they may lose their license,” Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer and a professor of psychiatry at University of California, Davis, said in a public comment offered at the meeting. “This is ultimately all about patient safety.”
said Joe Knickrehm, a spokesman for the FSMB. Over the past few years, Kentucky, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont and Washington have made changes to their licensing questions, he added.
Still, state boards are not moving quickly enough to remove or revise these questions about mental health, said Katherine J. Gold, MD MSW, associate professor in the department of family medicine at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She has studied how these queries can deter physicians from seeking treatment for mental illness. A past treatment for postpartum depression may have no bearing on a physician’s practice, yet members of many state medical boards hesitate to alter their approach, she noted.
Groups including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Psychiatric Association also have pushed in recent years for changes in state rules about what a physician has to disclose about mental health, with the FSMB taking a lead in these efforts. In many cases, physicians face questions about their mental health that are beyond the limits of standards set by the Americans With Disabilities Act, according to an article published this year in the FSMB’s Journal of Medical Regulation. As of 2017, a review of questions on initial licensure applications for all 50 states and the District of Columbia showed that 32 licensing boards ask questions beyond the limits of ADA standards, the article said.
Consequences of “reporting stable and easily treatable conditions such as anxiety or depression to a state licensing board can range from a physician simply being required to submit a letter from their primary care provider documenting fitness to practice, to a request to appear before the board, to being required to undergo and pay for an examination by a board-appointed physician,” wrote Catherine M. Welcher, an AMA senior policy analyst, and coauthors of the paper, including Humayun J. Chaudhry, DO, FSMB’s CEO.
Nearly 40% of physicians surveyed about medical licensing questions (2,325 of 5,829) indicated they would be reluctant to seek formal medical care for a mental health condition because of potential repercussions, Liselotte N. Dyrbye, MD, and coauthors reported in 2017 in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
“You’re sort of stuck. You recognize you have a problem and you want to seek care so that you can get better, but if you do that, you might have to tell the board,” Dr. Dyrbye said in an interview. “You could be mandated potentially to have an outside psychiatric evaluation, to have your personal medical records reviewed by people other than your personal physician.”
Rising levels of burnout among physicians make it critical to remove obstacles to care, said Arthur S. Hengerer, MD, a former chair of the FSMB who has been a leader in efforts to revise medical licensing questions.
“The only thing that really brings joy to medicine are the relationships you develop with patients, the trust that comes from that, and when you can’t develop relationships because you can’t spend the time, because you are clicking and documenting, it hurts,” said Andrew Lamb, MD, who aided in successful efforts to change North Carolina’s licensing questions.
North Carolina approached this issue in steps. In 2017, it removed a question about mental health from its annual physician license renewal form. In 2018, the North Carolina Medical Board voted to drop questions about mental and physical health from physician license applications.
“It’s hoped that removing this question will encourage clinicians to get the help they need, without fear it will compromise their chances to obtain a professional license,” the board said in an annual report.
Other states are retaining these questions, but allowing physicians to check “no” if they are in an approved program for mental health treatment. The North Dakota Board of Medicine took this approach.
“Because our mission is protection of the public, we didn’t feel that we could eliminate that question,” Bonnie Storbakken, JD, executive secretary of the North Dakota Board of Medicine, said in an interview.
The North Dakota board voted in March 2018 to change its question on mental health after the FSMB spurred a national dialogue on this issue, she said. The North Dakota board opted to allow physicians to check ‘no’ on the question about current mental health and or substance issues if they had voluntarily sought assistance from the North Dakota Professional Health Program or a professional health program in another state. The approach preserves anonymity. The question as previously phrased made some physicians feel they had to report their treatment, she said.
In Alabama, physicians also have the option to check “no” on questions about whether they are undergoing mental health treatment if they are participating in a professional assistance program. Mark Jackson, executive director of the Medical Association of Alabama, said he hopes more states give physicians this option for seeking help not only with mental health issues, but with addiction as well.
“You need to get people in and get them help and not jeopardize their career in the process. Society in general has got that problem going on and physicians are not immune from that,” Mr. Jackson said. “Hopefully other states will see that we need to do something to make sure that the physician population is taken care of.”
Pamela Wible, MD, an advocate for physicians’ mental health, did her own review of state board’s licensing questions. In an assessment posted on her website, Dr. Wible, who practices family medicine, gives 13 states an “A” grade for having no mental health questions or one or two straightforward current questions about impairment that do not mention mental health. “Connecticut, Hawaii, Michigan, and New York are the most physician-friendly of all states with no mental health or impairment questions,” Dr. Wible wrote.
The Texas Medical Board earned a “C” grade in Dr. Wible’s survey. In May 2019, that board’s chairman, Sherif Zaafran, MD, wrote about how his organization had taken a new look at the licensing questions, which were last revised in 2014. While the board has not decided on any immediate changes, it is “maintaining an open dialogue to address future concerns,” Dr. Zaafran wrote in the board’s bulletin.
The Texas Medical Board’s physician licensing form, as posted on its website, includes a broadly phrased question on mental health: “Within the past five (5) years, have you been diagnosed with or treated for any: psychotic disorder, delusional disorder, mood disorder, major depression, personality disorder, or any other mental condition which impaired or does impair your behavior, judgment, or ability to function in school or work?”
Physicians who have had treatment for mental health conditions then must submit another form. They may have to provide details on diagnosis, prognosis, and medications prescribed. Compliance requirements include counseling records, contracts with impairment support groups, and records on file with law enforcement agencies and licensing agencies.
State officials are trying to figure out how best to learn of potential impairments that could pose a risk for patients, without scaring physicians away from getting the care they themselves need said Stephen ‘Brint’ Carlton, JD, executive director of the Texas Medical Board.
Delicia M. Haynes, MD, wants the Florida Board of Medicine to take another look at how its licensing applications query physicians about their mental health history. Her state’s board is one of several nationwide that has, in recent years, mulled whether the phrasing of its questions poses an unintended hurdle for physicians who need help for conditions such as depression.
The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) recommends limiting such queries, if they must be asked, to questions about potential current impairment. But the Florida license application takes a more sweeping approach that may discourage physicians from seeking treatment, Dr. Haynes, founder and CEO of Family First Health Center in Daytona Beach, Fla., said in a video. She describes herself as a direct primary care physician.
In the video, which was posted on YouTube in January, 2019, Dr. Haynes discussed her own experience with having been treated for depression and then needing to report that to the state board. Florida’s license application asks if physicians have been treated within the past 5 years for a mental disorder that has impaired the ability to practice medicine. Those who have had such a condition may need to give the board an explanation providing the names of the physicians, therapists, and counselors they have seen, as well as details and dates for the institutions where they received treatment.
State medical boards play a critical role in protecting people from physicians whose current mental health conditions may risk harming patients, Dr. Haynes said. But they must balance that against the consequences of overly intrusive questioning. Florida’s current application wording may deter physicians from seeking care if they develop conditions such as depression, she said.
“It’s the fear of what’s going to happen if I have to check yes,” Dr. Haynes said in her YouTube video. Physicians will wonder how getting treatment could put their license and their employment at risk, she added.
“It’s really important that [state medical boards] are asking the questions that matter and those questions are questions that talk about impairment, and not just having a history,” Dr. Haynes said.
Members of Florida’s board of medicine last year favorably discussed making such a change during a rules/legislative committee meeting, but have not yet implemented it. The board has postponed further discussion of this topic until its December meeting, said Brad Dalton, a spokesman for the Florida Department of Health.
Dr. Haynes said in an email that she will continue to press for changes in her state’s licensing application.
There’s been a wave of reconsideration of these kinds of questions, spurred by FSMB efforts, which included the board’s offering specific advice to state medical boards about questions on licensing applications as part of a set of recommendations on addressing physician wellness and burnout last year in a report.
Boards have the option of omitting or dropping specific inquiries about mental health. But if they choose to retain this question, FSMB recommends using this phrasing: “Are you currently suffering from any condition for which you are not being appropriately treated that impairs your judgment or that would otherwise adversely affect your ability to practice medicine in a competent, ethical and professional manner? (Yes/No)” the report says.
The staff of the Medical Board of California cited FSMB’s recommendation in a January 2019 report about revising the state’s approach to asking physicians about their mental health. In May 2019, the board voted unanimously to revise its questions on physicians’ mental health, narrowing its inquiry on the licensing application to focus on current impairment.
“There are many doctors who do not seek treatment or find it threatening to seek treatment, because they are concerned that they may lose their license,” Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer and a professor of psychiatry at University of California, Davis, said in a public comment offered at the meeting. “This is ultimately all about patient safety.”
said Joe Knickrehm, a spokesman for the FSMB. Over the past few years, Kentucky, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont and Washington have made changes to their licensing questions, he added.
Still, state boards are not moving quickly enough to remove or revise these questions about mental health, said Katherine J. Gold, MD MSW, associate professor in the department of family medicine at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She has studied how these queries can deter physicians from seeking treatment for mental illness. A past treatment for postpartum depression may have no bearing on a physician’s practice, yet members of many state medical boards hesitate to alter their approach, she noted.
Groups including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Psychiatric Association also have pushed in recent years for changes in state rules about what a physician has to disclose about mental health, with the FSMB taking a lead in these efforts. In many cases, physicians face questions about their mental health that are beyond the limits of standards set by the Americans With Disabilities Act, according to an article published this year in the FSMB’s Journal of Medical Regulation. As of 2017, a review of questions on initial licensure applications for all 50 states and the District of Columbia showed that 32 licensing boards ask questions beyond the limits of ADA standards, the article said.
Consequences of “reporting stable and easily treatable conditions such as anxiety or depression to a state licensing board can range from a physician simply being required to submit a letter from their primary care provider documenting fitness to practice, to a request to appear before the board, to being required to undergo and pay for an examination by a board-appointed physician,” wrote Catherine M. Welcher, an AMA senior policy analyst, and coauthors of the paper, including Humayun J. Chaudhry, DO, FSMB’s CEO.
Nearly 40% of physicians surveyed about medical licensing questions (2,325 of 5,829) indicated they would be reluctant to seek formal medical care for a mental health condition because of potential repercussions, Liselotte N. Dyrbye, MD, and coauthors reported in 2017 in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
“You’re sort of stuck. You recognize you have a problem and you want to seek care so that you can get better, but if you do that, you might have to tell the board,” Dr. Dyrbye said in an interview. “You could be mandated potentially to have an outside psychiatric evaluation, to have your personal medical records reviewed by people other than your personal physician.”
Rising levels of burnout among physicians make it critical to remove obstacles to care, said Arthur S. Hengerer, MD, a former chair of the FSMB who has been a leader in efforts to revise medical licensing questions.
“The only thing that really brings joy to medicine are the relationships you develop with patients, the trust that comes from that, and when you can’t develop relationships because you can’t spend the time, because you are clicking and documenting, it hurts,” said Andrew Lamb, MD, who aided in successful efforts to change North Carolina’s licensing questions.
North Carolina approached this issue in steps. In 2017, it removed a question about mental health from its annual physician license renewal form. In 2018, the North Carolina Medical Board voted to drop questions about mental and physical health from physician license applications.
“It’s hoped that removing this question will encourage clinicians to get the help they need, without fear it will compromise their chances to obtain a professional license,” the board said in an annual report.
Other states are retaining these questions, but allowing physicians to check “no” if they are in an approved program for mental health treatment. The North Dakota Board of Medicine took this approach.
“Because our mission is protection of the public, we didn’t feel that we could eliminate that question,” Bonnie Storbakken, JD, executive secretary of the North Dakota Board of Medicine, said in an interview.
The North Dakota board voted in March 2018 to change its question on mental health after the FSMB spurred a national dialogue on this issue, she said. The North Dakota board opted to allow physicians to check ‘no’ on the question about current mental health and or substance issues if they had voluntarily sought assistance from the North Dakota Professional Health Program or a professional health program in another state. The approach preserves anonymity. The question as previously phrased made some physicians feel they had to report their treatment, she said.
In Alabama, physicians also have the option to check “no” on questions about whether they are undergoing mental health treatment if they are participating in a professional assistance program. Mark Jackson, executive director of the Medical Association of Alabama, said he hopes more states give physicians this option for seeking help not only with mental health issues, but with addiction as well.
“You need to get people in and get them help and not jeopardize their career in the process. Society in general has got that problem going on and physicians are not immune from that,” Mr. Jackson said. “Hopefully other states will see that we need to do something to make sure that the physician population is taken care of.”
Pamela Wible, MD, an advocate for physicians’ mental health, did her own review of state board’s licensing questions. In an assessment posted on her website, Dr. Wible, who practices family medicine, gives 13 states an “A” grade for having no mental health questions or one or two straightforward current questions about impairment that do not mention mental health. “Connecticut, Hawaii, Michigan, and New York are the most physician-friendly of all states with no mental health or impairment questions,” Dr. Wible wrote.
The Texas Medical Board earned a “C” grade in Dr. Wible’s survey. In May 2019, that board’s chairman, Sherif Zaafran, MD, wrote about how his organization had taken a new look at the licensing questions, which were last revised in 2014. While the board has not decided on any immediate changes, it is “maintaining an open dialogue to address future concerns,” Dr. Zaafran wrote in the board’s bulletin.
The Texas Medical Board’s physician licensing form, as posted on its website, includes a broadly phrased question on mental health: “Within the past five (5) years, have you been diagnosed with or treated for any: psychotic disorder, delusional disorder, mood disorder, major depression, personality disorder, or any other mental condition which impaired or does impair your behavior, judgment, or ability to function in school or work?”
Physicians who have had treatment for mental health conditions then must submit another form. They may have to provide details on diagnosis, prognosis, and medications prescribed. Compliance requirements include counseling records, contracts with impairment support groups, and records on file with law enforcement agencies and licensing agencies.
State officials are trying to figure out how best to learn of potential impairments that could pose a risk for patients, without scaring physicians away from getting the care they themselves need said Stephen ‘Brint’ Carlton, JD, executive director of the Texas Medical Board.
Delicia M. Haynes, MD, wants the Florida Board of Medicine to take another look at how its licensing applications query physicians about their mental health history. Her state’s board is one of several nationwide that has, in recent years, mulled whether the phrasing of its questions poses an unintended hurdle for physicians who need help for conditions such as depression.
The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) recommends limiting such queries, if they must be asked, to questions about potential current impairment. But the Florida license application takes a more sweeping approach that may discourage physicians from seeking treatment, Dr. Haynes, founder and CEO of Family First Health Center in Daytona Beach, Fla., said in a video. She describes herself as a direct primary care physician.
In the video, which was posted on YouTube in January, 2019, Dr. Haynes discussed her own experience with having been treated for depression and then needing to report that to the state board. Florida’s license application asks if physicians have been treated within the past 5 years for a mental disorder that has impaired the ability to practice medicine. Those who have had such a condition may need to give the board an explanation providing the names of the physicians, therapists, and counselors they have seen, as well as details and dates for the institutions where they received treatment.
State medical boards play a critical role in protecting people from physicians whose current mental health conditions may risk harming patients, Dr. Haynes said. But they must balance that against the consequences of overly intrusive questioning. Florida’s current application wording may deter physicians from seeking care if they develop conditions such as depression, she said.
“It’s the fear of what’s going to happen if I have to check yes,” Dr. Haynes said in her YouTube video. Physicians will wonder how getting treatment could put their license and their employment at risk, she added.
“It’s really important that [state medical boards] are asking the questions that matter and those questions are questions that talk about impairment, and not just having a history,” Dr. Haynes said.
Members of Florida’s board of medicine last year favorably discussed making such a change during a rules/legislative committee meeting, but have not yet implemented it. The board has postponed further discussion of this topic until its December meeting, said Brad Dalton, a spokesman for the Florida Department of Health.
Dr. Haynes said in an email that she will continue to press for changes in her state’s licensing application.
There’s been a wave of reconsideration of these kinds of questions, spurred by FSMB efforts, which included the board’s offering specific advice to state medical boards about questions on licensing applications as part of a set of recommendations on addressing physician wellness and burnout last year in a report.
Boards have the option of omitting or dropping specific inquiries about mental health. But if they choose to retain this question, FSMB recommends using this phrasing: “Are you currently suffering from any condition for which you are not being appropriately treated that impairs your judgment or that would otherwise adversely affect your ability to practice medicine in a competent, ethical and professional manner? (Yes/No)” the report says.
The staff of the Medical Board of California cited FSMB’s recommendation in a January 2019 report about revising the state’s approach to asking physicians about their mental health. In May 2019, the board voted unanimously to revise its questions on physicians’ mental health, narrowing its inquiry on the licensing application to focus on current impairment.
“There are many doctors who do not seek treatment or find it threatening to seek treatment, because they are concerned that they may lose their license,” Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer and a professor of psychiatry at University of California, Davis, said in a public comment offered at the meeting. “This is ultimately all about patient safety.”
said Joe Knickrehm, a spokesman for the FSMB. Over the past few years, Kentucky, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont and Washington have made changes to their licensing questions, he added.
Still, state boards are not moving quickly enough to remove or revise these questions about mental health, said Katherine J. Gold, MD MSW, associate professor in the department of family medicine at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She has studied how these queries can deter physicians from seeking treatment for mental illness. A past treatment for postpartum depression may have no bearing on a physician’s practice, yet members of many state medical boards hesitate to alter their approach, she noted.
Groups including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Psychiatric Association also have pushed in recent years for changes in state rules about what a physician has to disclose about mental health, with the FSMB taking a lead in these efforts. In many cases, physicians face questions about their mental health that are beyond the limits of standards set by the Americans With Disabilities Act, according to an article published this year in the FSMB’s Journal of Medical Regulation. As of 2017, a review of questions on initial licensure applications for all 50 states and the District of Columbia showed that 32 licensing boards ask questions beyond the limits of ADA standards, the article said.
Consequences of “reporting stable and easily treatable conditions such as anxiety or depression to a state licensing board can range from a physician simply being required to submit a letter from their primary care provider documenting fitness to practice, to a request to appear before the board, to being required to undergo and pay for an examination by a board-appointed physician,” wrote Catherine M. Welcher, an AMA senior policy analyst, and coauthors of the paper, including Humayun J. Chaudhry, DO, FSMB’s CEO.
Nearly 40% of physicians surveyed about medical licensing questions (2,325 of 5,829) indicated they would be reluctant to seek formal medical care for a mental health condition because of potential repercussions, Liselotte N. Dyrbye, MD, and coauthors reported in 2017 in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
“You’re sort of stuck. You recognize you have a problem and you want to seek care so that you can get better, but if you do that, you might have to tell the board,” Dr. Dyrbye said in an interview. “You could be mandated potentially to have an outside psychiatric evaluation, to have your personal medical records reviewed by people other than your personal physician.”
Rising levels of burnout among physicians make it critical to remove obstacles to care, said Arthur S. Hengerer, MD, a former chair of the FSMB who has been a leader in efforts to revise medical licensing questions.
“The only thing that really brings joy to medicine are the relationships you develop with patients, the trust that comes from that, and when you can’t develop relationships because you can’t spend the time, because you are clicking and documenting, it hurts,” said Andrew Lamb, MD, who aided in successful efforts to change North Carolina’s licensing questions.
North Carolina approached this issue in steps. In 2017, it removed a question about mental health from its annual physician license renewal form. In 2018, the North Carolina Medical Board voted to drop questions about mental and physical health from physician license applications.
“It’s hoped that removing this question will encourage clinicians to get the help they need, without fear it will compromise their chances to obtain a professional license,” the board said in an annual report.
Other states are retaining these questions, but allowing physicians to check “no” if they are in an approved program for mental health treatment. The North Dakota Board of Medicine took this approach.
“Because our mission is protection of the public, we didn’t feel that we could eliminate that question,” Bonnie Storbakken, JD, executive secretary of the North Dakota Board of Medicine, said in an interview.
The North Dakota board voted in March 2018 to change its question on mental health after the FSMB spurred a national dialogue on this issue, she said. The North Dakota board opted to allow physicians to check ‘no’ on the question about current mental health and or substance issues if they had voluntarily sought assistance from the North Dakota Professional Health Program or a professional health program in another state. The approach preserves anonymity. The question as previously phrased made some physicians feel they had to report their treatment, she said.
In Alabama, physicians also have the option to check “no” on questions about whether they are undergoing mental health treatment if they are participating in a professional assistance program. Mark Jackson, executive director of the Medical Association of Alabama, said he hopes more states give physicians this option for seeking help not only with mental health issues, but with addiction as well.
“You need to get people in and get them help and not jeopardize their career in the process. Society in general has got that problem going on and physicians are not immune from that,” Mr. Jackson said. “Hopefully other states will see that we need to do something to make sure that the physician population is taken care of.”
Pamela Wible, MD, an advocate for physicians’ mental health, did her own review of state board’s licensing questions. In an assessment posted on her website, Dr. Wible, who practices family medicine, gives 13 states an “A” grade for having no mental health questions or one or two straightforward current questions about impairment that do not mention mental health. “Connecticut, Hawaii, Michigan, and New York are the most physician-friendly of all states with no mental health or impairment questions,” Dr. Wible wrote.
The Texas Medical Board earned a “C” grade in Dr. Wible’s survey. In May 2019, that board’s chairman, Sherif Zaafran, MD, wrote about how his organization had taken a new look at the licensing questions, which were last revised in 2014. While the board has not decided on any immediate changes, it is “maintaining an open dialogue to address future concerns,” Dr. Zaafran wrote in the board’s bulletin.
The Texas Medical Board’s physician licensing form, as posted on its website, includes a broadly phrased question on mental health: “Within the past five (5) years, have you been diagnosed with or treated for any: psychotic disorder, delusional disorder, mood disorder, major depression, personality disorder, or any other mental condition which impaired or does impair your behavior, judgment, or ability to function in school or work?”
Physicians who have had treatment for mental health conditions then must submit another form. They may have to provide details on diagnosis, prognosis, and medications prescribed. Compliance requirements include counseling records, contracts with impairment support groups, and records on file with law enforcement agencies and licensing agencies.
State officials are trying to figure out how best to learn of potential impairments that could pose a risk for patients, without scaring physicians away from getting the care they themselves need said Stephen ‘Brint’ Carlton, JD, executive director of the Texas Medical Board.