News

Artificial intelligence (AI)–supported breast cancer screening appears safe and at least as accurate as standard double reading of mammograms by two breast radiologists, according to early results from a large, randomized, population-based cohort study.

The AI-supported screening also reduced radiologist workload by nearly 44%, researchers estimated.

The trial also found a 20% increase in cancer detection using AI support compared with routine double mammography reading, underscoring AI’s potential to improve screening accuracy and efficiency.

The findings, published online in Lancet Oncology, come from a planned interim safety analysis of the Swedish Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence (MASAI) trial.

To date, AI has shown promise in mammography screening, with retrospective evidence demonstrating similar accuracy, compared with standard double readings as well as reduced workload for radiologists. Still, randomized trials assessing the efficacy of AI-supported breast screening are needed.

The aim of the current interim randomized analysis was to assess early screening performance, which included cancer detection, recall, and false positive rates as well as cancer type detected and workload.

The MASAI trial randomized 80,033 women, with a median age of 54, to AI-supported screening (n = 40,003) or double reading without AI (n = 40,030).

The AI system provided malignancy risk scores from 1 to 10, with low-risk scores ranging from 1 to 7, intermediate risk from 8 to 9, and high risk at 10. These risk scores were used to triage screening exams to a single radiologist reading (score of 1-9) or double reading (score of 10), given that cancer prevalence “increases sharply” for those with a risk score of 10, the researchers explained. The AI system also provided computer-aided detection marks for exams with risk scores of 8-10 to radiologists.

Among nearly 40,000 women screened with AI support, 244 cancers were detected, including 184 invasive cancers (75%) and 60 in situ cancers (25%), and resulted in 861 recalls. Among 40,024 participants receiving standard screening, radiologists detected 203 cancers, including 165 invasive cancers (81%) and 38 in situ cancers (19%), and resulted in 817 recalls.

Overall, the detection rate using AI support versus standard screening was 6.1 per 1000 screened participants versus 5.1 per 1,000. The recall rates were 2.2% versus 2.0%, respectively.

The false positive rates were the same in both groups (1.5%) while the positive predictive value (PPV) of recall – how likely a recall of a participant ultimately led to a cancer diagnosis – was higher in the AI group: 28.3% versus 24.8%.

The cancer detection rate in the high-risk group – patients with a risk score of 10 – was 72.3 per 1000 participants screened, or one cancer per 14 screening exams. And, overall, 189 of 490 screening exams flagged as extra-high risk by AI (the highest 1% risk) were recalled. Of the 189 recalled participants, 136 had cancer, representing a PPV of recall of 72%.

Overall, “we found that the benefit of AI-supported screening in terms of screen-reading workload reduction was considerable,” the authors said.

Assuming a radiologist can read 50 mammograms an hour, the researchers estimated that a radiologist would take 4.6 fewer months to read more than 46,000 screening exams in the intervention group compared with more than 83,000 in the control group.

Although these early safety results are “promising,” the findings “are not enough on their own to confirm that AI is ready to be implemented in mammography screening,” lead author Kristina Lång, PhD, of Lund (Sweden) University, said in a press release.

“We still need to understand the implications on patients’ outcomes, especially whether combining radiologists’ expertise with AI can help detect interval cancers that are often missed by traditional screening, as well as the cost-effectiveness of the technology,” she said, adding that “the greatest potential of AI right now is that it could allow radiologists to be less burdened by the excessive amount of reading.”

In an accompanying editorial, Nereo Segnan, MD, and Antonio Ponti, MD, both of CPO Piemonte in Torino, Italy, said that the AI risk score for breast cancer in the trial “seems very accurate at being able to separate high-risk from low-risk women.”

However, the potential for overdiagnosis or overdetection of indolent lesions in the intervention group should “prompt caution in the interpretation of results that otherwise seem straightforward in favoring the use of AI,” the editorialists noted.

The authors agreed that increased detection of in situ cancers with AI-supported screening compared with standard screening – 25% versus 19% – “could be concerning in terms of overdiagnosis,” as the risk of overtreatment is more likely with these low-grade cancers.

In the final analysis, Dr. Lång and colleagues plan to characterize the biological features of detected lesions to provide further insight on AI-supported screening, including the risk for overdiagnosis.

In a statement to the U.K.-based Science Media Centre, Stephen Duffy, professor of cancer screening, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, commented that the “results illustrate the potential for artificial intelligence to reduce the burden on radiologists’ time,” which is “an issue of considerable importance in many breast screening programs.”

The MASAI study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society, Confederation of Regional Cancer Centres, and government funding for clinical research. Dr. Lång has been an advisory board member for Siemens Healthineers and has received lecture honorarium from AstraZeneca. Dr. Segnan and Dr. Hall reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Artificial intelligence (AI)–supported breast cancer screening appears safe and at least as accurate as standard double reading of mammograms by two breast radiologists, according to early results from a large, randomized, population-based cohort study.

The AI-supported screening also reduced radiologist workload by nearly 44%, researchers estimated.

The trial also found a 20% increase in cancer detection using AI support compared with routine double mammography reading, underscoring AI’s potential to improve screening accuracy and efficiency.

The findings, published online in Lancet Oncology, come from a planned interim safety analysis of the Swedish Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence (MASAI) trial.

To date, AI has shown promise in mammography screening, with retrospective evidence demonstrating similar accuracy, compared with standard double readings as well as reduced workload for radiologists. Still, randomized trials assessing the efficacy of AI-supported breast screening are needed.

The aim of the current interim randomized analysis was to assess early screening performance, which included cancer detection, recall, and false positive rates as well as cancer type detected and workload.

The MASAI trial randomized 80,033 women, with a median age of 54, to AI-supported screening (n = 40,003) or double reading without AI (n = 40,030).

The AI system provided malignancy risk scores from 1 to 10, with low-risk scores ranging from 1 to 7, intermediate risk from 8 to 9, and high risk at 10. These risk scores were used to triage screening exams to a single radiologist reading (score of 1-9) or double reading (score of 10), given that cancer prevalence “increases sharply” for those with a risk score of 10, the researchers explained. The AI system also provided computer-aided detection marks for exams with risk scores of 8-10 to radiologists.

Among nearly 40,000 women screened with AI support, 244 cancers were detected, including 184 invasive cancers (75%) and 60 in situ cancers (25%), and resulted in 861 recalls. Among 40,024 participants receiving standard screening, radiologists detected 203 cancers, including 165 invasive cancers (81%) and 38 in situ cancers (19%), and resulted in 817 recalls.

Overall, the detection rate using AI support versus standard screening was 6.1 per 1000 screened participants versus 5.1 per 1,000. The recall rates were 2.2% versus 2.0%, respectively.

The false positive rates were the same in both groups (1.5%) while the positive predictive value (PPV) of recall – how likely a recall of a participant ultimately led to a cancer diagnosis – was higher in the AI group: 28.3% versus 24.8%.

The cancer detection rate in the high-risk group – patients with a risk score of 10 – was 72.3 per 1000 participants screened, or one cancer per 14 screening exams. And, overall, 189 of 490 screening exams flagged as extra-high risk by AI (the highest 1% risk) were recalled. Of the 189 recalled participants, 136 had cancer, representing a PPV of recall of 72%.

Overall, “we found that the benefit of AI-supported screening in terms of screen-reading workload reduction was considerable,” the authors said.

Assuming a radiologist can read 50 mammograms an hour, the researchers estimated that a radiologist would take 4.6 fewer months to read more than 46,000 screening exams in the intervention group compared with more than 83,000 in the control group.

Although these early safety results are “promising,” the findings “are not enough on their own to confirm that AI is ready to be implemented in mammography screening,” lead author Kristina Lång, PhD, of Lund (Sweden) University, said in a press release.

“We still need to understand the implications on patients’ outcomes, especially whether combining radiologists’ expertise with AI can help detect interval cancers that are often missed by traditional screening, as well as the cost-effectiveness of the technology,” she said, adding that “the greatest potential of AI right now is that it could allow radiologists to be less burdened by the excessive amount of reading.”

In an accompanying editorial, Nereo Segnan, MD, and Antonio Ponti, MD, both of CPO Piemonte in Torino, Italy, said that the AI risk score for breast cancer in the trial “seems very accurate at being able to separate high-risk from low-risk women.”

However, the potential for overdiagnosis or overdetection of indolent lesions in the intervention group should “prompt caution in the interpretation of results that otherwise seem straightforward in favoring the use of AI,” the editorialists noted.

The authors agreed that increased detection of in situ cancers with AI-supported screening compared with standard screening – 25% versus 19% – “could be concerning in terms of overdiagnosis,” as the risk of overtreatment is more likely with these low-grade cancers.

In the final analysis, Dr. Lång and colleagues plan to characterize the biological features of detected lesions to provide further insight on AI-supported screening, including the risk for overdiagnosis.

In a statement to the U.K.-based Science Media Centre, Stephen Duffy, professor of cancer screening, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, commented that the “results illustrate the potential for artificial intelligence to reduce the burden on radiologists’ time,” which is “an issue of considerable importance in many breast screening programs.”

The MASAI study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society, Confederation of Regional Cancer Centres, and government funding for clinical research. Dr. Lång has been an advisory board member for Siemens Healthineers and has received lecture honorarium from AstraZeneca. Dr. Segnan and Dr. Hall reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Artificial intelligence (AI)–supported breast cancer screening appears safe and at least as accurate as standard double reading of mammograms by two breast radiologists, according to early results from a large, randomized, population-based cohort study.

The AI-supported screening also reduced radiologist workload by nearly 44%, researchers estimated.

The trial also found a 20% increase in cancer detection using AI support compared with routine double mammography reading, underscoring AI’s potential to improve screening accuracy and efficiency.

The findings, published online in Lancet Oncology, come from a planned interim safety analysis of the Swedish Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence (MASAI) trial.

To date, AI has shown promise in mammography screening, with retrospective evidence demonstrating similar accuracy, compared with standard double readings as well as reduced workload for radiologists. Still, randomized trials assessing the efficacy of AI-supported breast screening are needed.

The aim of the current interim randomized analysis was to assess early screening performance, which included cancer detection, recall, and false positive rates as well as cancer type detected and workload.

The MASAI trial randomized 80,033 women, with a median age of 54, to AI-supported screening (n = 40,003) or double reading without AI (n = 40,030).

The AI system provided malignancy risk scores from 1 to 10, with low-risk scores ranging from 1 to 7, intermediate risk from 8 to 9, and high risk at 10. These risk scores were used to triage screening exams to a single radiologist reading (score of 1-9) or double reading (score of 10), given that cancer prevalence “increases sharply” for those with a risk score of 10, the researchers explained. The AI system also provided computer-aided detection marks for exams with risk scores of 8-10 to radiologists.

Among nearly 40,000 women screened with AI support, 244 cancers were detected, including 184 invasive cancers (75%) and 60 in situ cancers (25%), and resulted in 861 recalls. Among 40,024 participants receiving standard screening, radiologists detected 203 cancers, including 165 invasive cancers (81%) and 38 in situ cancers (19%), and resulted in 817 recalls.

Overall, the detection rate using AI support versus standard screening was 6.1 per 1000 screened participants versus 5.1 per 1,000. The recall rates were 2.2% versus 2.0%, respectively.

The false positive rates were the same in both groups (1.5%) while the positive predictive value (PPV) of recall – how likely a recall of a participant ultimately led to a cancer diagnosis – was higher in the AI group: 28.3% versus 24.8%.

The cancer detection rate in the high-risk group – patients with a risk score of 10 – was 72.3 per 1000 participants screened, or one cancer per 14 screening exams. And, overall, 189 of 490 screening exams flagged as extra-high risk by AI (the highest 1% risk) were recalled. Of the 189 recalled participants, 136 had cancer, representing a PPV of recall of 72%.

Overall, “we found that the benefit of AI-supported screening in terms of screen-reading workload reduction was considerable,” the authors said.

Assuming a radiologist can read 50 mammograms an hour, the researchers estimated that a radiologist would take 4.6 fewer months to read more than 46,000 screening exams in the intervention group compared with more than 83,000 in the control group.

Although these early safety results are “promising,” the findings “are not enough on their own to confirm that AI is ready to be implemented in mammography screening,” lead author Kristina Lång, PhD, of Lund (Sweden) University, said in a press release.

“We still need to understand the implications on patients’ outcomes, especially whether combining radiologists’ expertise with AI can help detect interval cancers that are often missed by traditional screening, as well as the cost-effectiveness of the technology,” she said, adding that “the greatest potential of AI right now is that it could allow radiologists to be less burdened by the excessive amount of reading.”

In an accompanying editorial, Nereo Segnan, MD, and Antonio Ponti, MD, both of CPO Piemonte in Torino, Italy, said that the AI risk score for breast cancer in the trial “seems very accurate at being able to separate high-risk from low-risk women.”

However, the potential for overdiagnosis or overdetection of indolent lesions in the intervention group should “prompt caution in the interpretation of results that otherwise seem straightforward in favoring the use of AI,” the editorialists noted.

The authors agreed that increased detection of in situ cancers with AI-supported screening compared with standard screening – 25% versus 19% – “could be concerning in terms of overdiagnosis,” as the risk of overtreatment is more likely with these low-grade cancers.

In the final analysis, Dr. Lång and colleagues plan to characterize the biological features of detected lesions to provide further insight on AI-supported screening, including the risk for overdiagnosis.

In a statement to the U.K.-based Science Media Centre, Stephen Duffy, professor of cancer screening, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, commented that the “results illustrate the potential for artificial intelligence to reduce the burden on radiologists’ time,” which is “an issue of considerable importance in many breast screening programs.”

The MASAI study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society, Confederation of Regional Cancer Centres, and government funding for clinical research. Dr. Lång has been an advisory board member for Siemens Healthineers and has received lecture honorarium from AstraZeneca. Dr. Segnan and Dr. Hall reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Medical students are taking more control over how and when they learn. It’s a practice propelled by the pandemic, but it started long before COVID shifted many traditional classrooms to virtual education.

New technologies, including online lectures and guided-lesson websites, along with alternative teaching methods, such as the flipped classroom model, in which med students complete before-class assignments and participate in group projects, are helping to train future physicians for their medical careers.

So though students may not be attending in-person lectures like they did in the past, proponents of online learning say the education students receive and the subsequent care they deliver remains the same.

The Association of American Medical Colleges’ most recent annual survey of 2nd-year medical students found that 25% “almost never” attended their in-person lectures in 2022. The figure has steadily improved since 2020 but mirrors what AAMC recorded in 2017.

“The pandemic may have exacerbated the trend, but it’s a long-standing issue,” said Katherine McOwen, senior director of educational and student affairs at AAMC. She said in an interview that she’s witnessed the pattern for 24 years in her work with medical schools.

“I know it sounds alarming that students aren’t attending lectures. But that doesn’t mean they’re not learning,” said Ahmed Ahmed, MD, MPP, MSc, a recent graduate of Harvard Medical School and now a resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

Today’s generation of medical students grew up in the age of technology. They are comfortable in front of the screen, so it makes sense for them to learn certain aspects of medical sciences and public health in the same way, Dr. Ahmed told this news organization.

Dr. Ahmed said that at Harvard he participated in one or two case-based classes per week that followed a flipped classroom model, which allows students to study topics on their own before discussing in a lecture format as a group. “We had to come up with a diagnostic plan and walk through the case slide by slide,” he said. “It got us to think like a clinician.”

The flipped classroom allows students to study at their own pace using their preferred learning style, leading to more collaboration in the classroom and between students, according to a 2022 article on the “new standard in medical education” published in Trends in Anaesthesia & Critical Care.

Students use online education tools to complete pre-class assignments such as watching short videos, listening to podcasts, or reading journal articles. In-class time can then be used to cement and create connections through discussions, interactive exercises, group learning, and case studies, the article stated.

Benefits of the flipped classroom include student satisfaction, learner motivation, and faculty interest in learning new teaching methods, according to the article: “Students are performing at least as well as those who attended traditional lectures, while some studies in select health care settings show increased retention in flipped classroom settings.”

Another study on the flipped classroom, published in 2018 in BMC Medical Education found that the teaching method was superior to traditional classrooms for health professions education. Researchers focused specifically on flipped classrooms that provided prerecorded videos to students.

Molly Cooke, MD, director of education for global health sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, said that the school no longer requires attendance at lectures. “Personally, my position is that medical students are very busy people and make, by and large, rational decisions about how to spend their time. As learning and retention from 50-minute lectures has been shown for decades to be poor, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to watch lectures on their own time.”

Dr. Ahmed agrees. “By our standards, the old model is archaic. It’s passive, and instead we should be encouraging lifelong, self-directed learning.”

To that end, Dr. Ahmed and his fellow students also relied heavily during medical school on secondary educational sources such as Boards and Beyond and Sketchy. “There’s an entire community of medical school students across the country using them,” Dr. Ahmed explained. “You can learn what you need in a tenth of the time of lectures.”

Today lectures only provide a portion of the information delivered to students, Dr. McGowen said. “They also learn in small groups, in problem-solving sessions, and in clinical experiences, all of which make up the meat of their education.”

The purpose of medical school is to prepare students for residency, she added. “Medical school education is very different from other types of education. Students are examined in a variety of ways before they move on to residency and ultimately, practice.”

For example, every student must pass the three-part United States Medical Licensing Examination. Students complete the first two parts in medical school and the third part during residency. “The tests represent a combination of everything students have learned, from lectures, clinical time, and in self-directed learning,” Dr. McGowen said.

Post pandemic, the tools and styles of learning in medical education have changed, and they are likely to continue to evolve along with students and technology, according to the 2022 article on the flipped classroom. “The future of medical education will continue to move in ways that embrace digital technology, as this is what digital native learners are increasingly expecting for their health care education,” states the article.

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

Medical students are taking more control over how and when they learn. It’s a practice propelled by the pandemic, but it started long before COVID shifted many traditional classrooms to virtual education.

New technologies, including online lectures and guided-lesson websites, along with alternative teaching methods, such as the flipped classroom model, in which med students complete before-class assignments and participate in group projects, are helping to train future physicians for their medical careers.

So though students may not be attending in-person lectures like they did in the past, proponents of online learning say the education students receive and the subsequent care they deliver remains the same.

The Association of American Medical Colleges’ most recent annual survey of 2nd-year medical students found that 25% “almost never” attended their in-person lectures in 2022. The figure has steadily improved since 2020 but mirrors what AAMC recorded in 2017.

“The pandemic may have exacerbated the trend, but it’s a long-standing issue,” said Katherine McOwen, senior director of educational and student affairs at AAMC. She said in an interview that she’s witnessed the pattern for 24 years in her work with medical schools.

“I know it sounds alarming that students aren’t attending lectures. But that doesn’t mean they’re not learning,” said Ahmed Ahmed, MD, MPP, MSc, a recent graduate of Harvard Medical School and now a resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

Today’s generation of medical students grew up in the age of technology. They are comfortable in front of the screen, so it makes sense for them to learn certain aspects of medical sciences and public health in the same way, Dr. Ahmed told this news organization.

Dr. Ahmed said that at Harvard he participated in one or two case-based classes per week that followed a flipped classroom model, which allows students to study topics on their own before discussing in a lecture format as a group. “We had to come up with a diagnostic plan and walk through the case slide by slide,” he said. “It got us to think like a clinician.”

The flipped classroom allows students to study at their own pace using their preferred learning style, leading to more collaboration in the classroom and between students, according to a 2022 article on the “new standard in medical education” published in Trends in Anaesthesia & Critical Care.

Students use online education tools to complete pre-class assignments such as watching short videos, listening to podcasts, or reading journal articles. In-class time can then be used to cement and create connections through discussions, interactive exercises, group learning, and case studies, the article stated.

Benefits of the flipped classroom include student satisfaction, learner motivation, and faculty interest in learning new teaching methods, according to the article: “Students are performing at least as well as those who attended traditional lectures, while some studies in select health care settings show increased retention in flipped classroom settings.”

Another study on the flipped classroom, published in 2018 in BMC Medical Education found that the teaching method was superior to traditional classrooms for health professions education. Researchers focused specifically on flipped classrooms that provided prerecorded videos to students.

Molly Cooke, MD, director of education for global health sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, said that the school no longer requires attendance at lectures. “Personally, my position is that medical students are very busy people and make, by and large, rational decisions about how to spend their time. As learning and retention from 50-minute lectures has been shown for decades to be poor, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to watch lectures on their own time.”

Dr. Ahmed agrees. “By our standards, the old model is archaic. It’s passive, and instead we should be encouraging lifelong, self-directed learning.”

To that end, Dr. Ahmed and his fellow students also relied heavily during medical school on secondary educational sources such as Boards and Beyond and Sketchy. “There’s an entire community of medical school students across the country using them,” Dr. Ahmed explained. “You can learn what you need in a tenth of the time of lectures.”

Today lectures only provide a portion of the information delivered to students, Dr. McGowen said. “They also learn in small groups, in problem-solving sessions, and in clinical experiences, all of which make up the meat of their education.”

The purpose of medical school is to prepare students for residency, she added. “Medical school education is very different from other types of education. Students are examined in a variety of ways before they move on to residency and ultimately, practice.”

For example, every student must pass the three-part United States Medical Licensing Examination. Students complete the first two parts in medical school and the third part during residency. “The tests represent a combination of everything students have learned, from lectures, clinical time, and in self-directed learning,” Dr. McGowen said.

Post pandemic, the tools and styles of learning in medical education have changed, and they are likely to continue to evolve along with students and technology, according to the 2022 article on the flipped classroom. “The future of medical education will continue to move in ways that embrace digital technology, as this is what digital native learners are increasingly expecting for their health care education,” states the article.

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

Medical students are taking more control over how and when they learn. It’s a practice propelled by the pandemic, but it started long before COVID shifted many traditional classrooms to virtual education.

New technologies, including online lectures and guided-lesson websites, along with alternative teaching methods, such as the flipped classroom model, in which med students complete before-class assignments and participate in group projects, are helping to train future physicians for their medical careers.

So though students may not be attending in-person lectures like they did in the past, proponents of online learning say the education students receive and the subsequent care they deliver remains the same.

The Association of American Medical Colleges’ most recent annual survey of 2nd-year medical students found that 25% “almost never” attended their in-person lectures in 2022. The figure has steadily improved since 2020 but mirrors what AAMC recorded in 2017.

“The pandemic may have exacerbated the trend, but it’s a long-standing issue,” said Katherine McOwen, senior director of educational and student affairs at AAMC. She said in an interview that she’s witnessed the pattern for 24 years in her work with medical schools.

“I know it sounds alarming that students aren’t attending lectures. But that doesn’t mean they’re not learning,” said Ahmed Ahmed, MD, MPP, MSc, a recent graduate of Harvard Medical School and now a resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

Today’s generation of medical students grew up in the age of technology. They are comfortable in front of the screen, so it makes sense for them to learn certain aspects of medical sciences and public health in the same way, Dr. Ahmed told this news organization.

Dr. Ahmed said that at Harvard he participated in one or two case-based classes per week that followed a flipped classroom model, which allows students to study topics on their own before discussing in a lecture format as a group. “We had to come up with a diagnostic plan and walk through the case slide by slide,” he said. “It got us to think like a clinician.”

The flipped classroom allows students to study at their own pace using their preferred learning style, leading to more collaboration in the classroom and between students, according to a 2022 article on the “new standard in medical education” published in Trends in Anaesthesia & Critical Care.

Students use online education tools to complete pre-class assignments such as watching short videos, listening to podcasts, or reading journal articles. In-class time can then be used to cement and create connections through discussions, interactive exercises, group learning, and case studies, the article stated.

Benefits of the flipped classroom include student satisfaction, learner motivation, and faculty interest in learning new teaching methods, according to the article: “Students are performing at least as well as those who attended traditional lectures, while some studies in select health care settings show increased retention in flipped classroom settings.”

Another study on the flipped classroom, published in 2018 in BMC Medical Education found that the teaching method was superior to traditional classrooms for health professions education. Researchers focused specifically on flipped classrooms that provided prerecorded videos to students.

Molly Cooke, MD, director of education for global health sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, said that the school no longer requires attendance at lectures. “Personally, my position is that medical students are very busy people and make, by and large, rational decisions about how to spend their time. As learning and retention from 50-minute lectures has been shown for decades to be poor, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to watch lectures on their own time.”

Dr. Ahmed agrees. “By our standards, the old model is archaic. It’s passive, and instead we should be encouraging lifelong, self-directed learning.”

To that end, Dr. Ahmed and his fellow students also relied heavily during medical school on secondary educational sources such as Boards and Beyond and Sketchy. “There’s an entire community of medical school students across the country using them,” Dr. Ahmed explained. “You can learn what you need in a tenth of the time of lectures.”

Today lectures only provide a portion of the information delivered to students, Dr. McGowen said. “They also learn in small groups, in problem-solving sessions, and in clinical experiences, all of which make up the meat of their education.”

The purpose of medical school is to prepare students for residency, she added. “Medical school education is very different from other types of education. Students are examined in a variety of ways before they move on to residency and ultimately, practice.”

For example, every student must pass the three-part United States Medical Licensing Examination. Students complete the first two parts in medical school and the third part during residency. “The tests represent a combination of everything students have learned, from lectures, clinical time, and in self-directed learning,” Dr. McGowen said.

Post pandemic, the tools and styles of learning in medical education have changed, and they are likely to continue to evolve along with students and technology, according to the 2022 article on the flipped classroom. “The future of medical education will continue to move in ways that embrace digital technology, as this is what digital native learners are increasingly expecting for their health care education,” states the article.

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

TOPLINE:

A dramatic increase in cancer diagnoses following Medicaid expansion in Ohio suggests that expanding the program improves access to cancer care.

METHODOLOGY:

• To assess the impact of Medicaid expansion on cancer diagnosis, investigators compared the volume of patients with newly diagnosed cancer in Ohio, which expanded its Medicaid coverage in 2014, with that of Georgia, which did not.
• State cancer registries were queried from 2010 to 2017 to identify adults younger than 64 years with incident female breast cancer, cervical cancer, or colorectal cancer (CRC).

TAKEAWAY:

• In Ohio, researchers found a substantial increase in diagnoses for all three cancers among Medicaid patients after expansion. The increase ranged from 42% for breast cancer to 77% for CRC.
• In Georgia, fewer Medicaid patients were diagnosed with breast cancer in the postexpansion period. There were also smaller increases in the number of patients diagnosed with cervical cancer (6%) and CRC (13%), compared with the postexpansion increases seen in Ohio.
• The risk of being diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer fell 7% among Medicaid patients in Ohio after expansion.
• The risk of being diagnosed with late-stage CRC fell 6% among Medicaid patients in George and Ohio. The Georgia results are potentially attributable to increases in state and local screening programs, especially in rural areas.

IN PRACTICE:

“These starkly different patterns in changes in the number of diagnosed [breast cancer], [cervical cancer], and CRC cases among patients on Medicaid in Ohio versus Georgia in the postexpansion period suggest that expanding insurance coverage might have effectively improved access to care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kirsten Eom, PhD, of the MetroHealth Population Health Research Institute, Cleveland, was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

• Medicaid status was determined at diagnosis; past studies have associated being enrolled in Medicaid at the time of cancer diagnosis, rather than before, with late‐stage disease.
• The team could not assess the effectiveness of state and local cancer screening programs in preventing late-stage cancer.

DISCLOSURES:

• The study was funded by the Ohio Department of Health and the Georgia Department of Public Health.
• One researcher reported a grant from Celgene.

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

TOPLINE:

A dramatic increase in cancer diagnoses following Medicaid expansion in Ohio suggests that expanding the program improves access to cancer care.

METHODOLOGY:

• To assess the impact of Medicaid expansion on cancer diagnosis, investigators compared the volume of patients with newly diagnosed cancer in Ohio, which expanded its Medicaid coverage in 2014, with that of Georgia, which did not.
• State cancer registries were queried from 2010 to 2017 to identify adults younger than 64 years with incident female breast cancer, cervical cancer, or colorectal cancer (CRC).

TAKEAWAY:

• In Ohio, researchers found a substantial increase in diagnoses for all three cancers among Medicaid patients after expansion. The increase ranged from 42% for breast cancer to 77% for CRC.
• In Georgia, fewer Medicaid patients were diagnosed with breast cancer in the postexpansion period. There were also smaller increases in the number of patients diagnosed with cervical cancer (6%) and CRC (13%), compared with the postexpansion increases seen in Ohio.
• The risk of being diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer fell 7% among Medicaid patients in Ohio after expansion.
• The risk of being diagnosed with late-stage CRC fell 6% among Medicaid patients in George and Ohio. The Georgia results are potentially attributable to increases in state and local screening programs, especially in rural areas.

IN PRACTICE:

“These starkly different patterns in changes in the number of diagnosed [breast cancer], [cervical cancer], and CRC cases among patients on Medicaid in Ohio versus Georgia in the postexpansion period suggest that expanding insurance coverage might have effectively improved access to care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kirsten Eom, PhD, of the MetroHealth Population Health Research Institute, Cleveland, was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

• Medicaid status was determined at diagnosis; past studies have associated being enrolled in Medicaid at the time of cancer diagnosis, rather than before, with late‐stage disease.
• The team could not assess the effectiveness of state and local cancer screening programs in preventing late-stage cancer.

DISCLOSURES:

• The study was funded by the Ohio Department of Health and the Georgia Department of Public Health.
• One researcher reported a grant from Celgene.

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

TOPLINE:

A dramatic increase in cancer diagnoses following Medicaid expansion in Ohio suggests that expanding the program improves access to cancer care.

METHODOLOGY:

• To assess the impact of Medicaid expansion on cancer diagnosis, investigators compared the volume of patients with newly diagnosed cancer in Ohio, which expanded its Medicaid coverage in 2014, with that of Georgia, which did not.
• State cancer registries were queried from 2010 to 2017 to identify adults younger than 64 years with incident female breast cancer, cervical cancer, or colorectal cancer (CRC).

TAKEAWAY:

• In Ohio, researchers found a substantial increase in diagnoses for all three cancers among Medicaid patients after expansion. The increase ranged from 42% for breast cancer to 77% for CRC.
• In Georgia, fewer Medicaid patients were diagnosed with breast cancer in the postexpansion period. There were also smaller increases in the number of patients diagnosed with cervical cancer (6%) and CRC (13%), compared with the postexpansion increases seen in Ohio.
• The risk of being diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer fell 7% among Medicaid patients in Ohio after expansion.
• The risk of being diagnosed with late-stage CRC fell 6% among Medicaid patients in George and Ohio. The Georgia results are potentially attributable to increases in state and local screening programs, especially in rural areas.

IN PRACTICE:

“These starkly different patterns in changes in the number of diagnosed [breast cancer], [cervical cancer], and CRC cases among patients on Medicaid in Ohio versus Georgia in the postexpansion period suggest that expanding insurance coverage might have effectively improved access to care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kirsten Eom, PhD, of the MetroHealth Population Health Research Institute, Cleveland, was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

• Medicaid status was determined at diagnosis; past studies have associated being enrolled in Medicaid at the time of cancer diagnosis, rather than before, with late‐stage disease.
• The team could not assess the effectiveness of state and local cancer screening programs in preventing late-stage cancer.

DISCLOSURES:

• The study was funded by the Ohio Department of Health and the Georgia Department of Public Health.
• One researcher reported a grant from Celgene.

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

Lower doses of initial vasopressin were associated with lower mortality when used as an adjunct in patients with septic shock, according to a review of three recent studies.

“Patients with septic shock require vasoactive agents to restore adequate tissue perfusion,” writes Gretchen L. Sacha, PharmD, of the Cleveland Clinic and colleagues.

Vasopressin is an attractive alternative to norepinephrine because it avoids the adverse effects associated with catecholamines, the researchers say. Although vasopressin is the recommended second-line adjunct after norepinephrine for patients with septic shock, findings to guide its use are inconsistent and data on the timing are limited, they note.

In a review published in the journal CHEST, the researchers summarize the three large, randomized trials to date examining the use of norepinephrine and vasopressin in patients with septic shock.

In the Vasopressin in Septic Shock Trial (VASST), 382 patients with septic shock were randomized to open-label norepinephrine with blinded norepinephrine, and 382 were randomized to open-label norepinephrine with blinded adjunctive vasopressin.

After initiation of the study drug, patients randomized to vasopressin had significantly lower requirements for open-label norepinephrine (P < .001). Although no differences occurred in the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, 90-day mortality was lower in the vasopressin group.

In the Vasopressin vs Norepinephrine as Initial Therapy in Septic Shock (VANISH) trial, 204 patients with septic shock were randomized to norepinephrine and 204 to vasopressin as an initial vasoactive agent. Although no differences appeared between the groups for the two primary outcomes of 28-day mortality and days free of kidney failure, the vasopressin group had a lower frequency of the use of kidney replacement therapy (absolute difference –9.9% vs. –0.6%).

The VANISH study was limited by the fact that 85% of the patients were receiving norepinephrine when they were randomized; “therefore, this study is best described as evaluating catecholamine-adjunctive vasopressin,” the researchers say.

The third clinical trial, published only as an abstract, randomized 387 patients with septic shock who were already receiving low doses of norepinephrine to either norepinephrine with adjunctive vasopressin or norepinephrine alone. Rates of 28-day mortality were significantly lower in the vasopressin group (34.0% vs. 42.3%; P = .03).

Several meta-analyses involving multiple vasopressin receptor agonists have shown an association between reduced mortality and their use. In addition, recent observational studies have shown an association between lower mortality and the initiation of vasopressors at a lower norepinephrine-equivalent dose or lower lactate concentration.

As for clinical implications, the 2021 version of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines included a meta-analysis of 10 randomized, controlled trials that showed improved mortality associated with vasopressin use. This version of the guidelines was the first to address the timing of vasopressin initiation.

Because of insufficient evidence, the guidance was worded as “in our practice, vasopressin is usually started when the dose of norepinephrine is in the range of 0.25-0.5 mcg/kg/min,” the researchers write. “Although this is not a recommendation by the SSC for a specific threshold of catecholamine dose where vasopressin should be initiated, this statement represents clinician interest and the need for further research on the topic,” they note.

“Future studies of vasopressin should focus on the timing of its initiation at various clinical thresholds and patient selection for receipt of vasopressin,” they conclude.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Dr. Sacha has disclosed consulting for Wolters Kluwer.

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

Lower doses of initial vasopressin were associated with lower mortality when used as an adjunct in patients with septic shock, according to a review of three recent studies.

“Patients with septic shock require vasoactive agents to restore adequate tissue perfusion,” writes Gretchen L. Sacha, PharmD, of the Cleveland Clinic and colleagues.

Vasopressin is an attractive alternative to norepinephrine because it avoids the adverse effects associated with catecholamines, the researchers say. Although vasopressin is the recommended second-line adjunct after norepinephrine for patients with septic shock, findings to guide its use are inconsistent and data on the timing are limited, they note.

In a review published in the journal CHEST, the researchers summarize the three large, randomized trials to date examining the use of norepinephrine and vasopressin in patients with septic shock.

In the Vasopressin in Septic Shock Trial (VASST), 382 patients with septic shock were randomized to open-label norepinephrine with blinded norepinephrine, and 382 were randomized to open-label norepinephrine with blinded adjunctive vasopressin.

After initiation of the study drug, patients randomized to vasopressin had significantly lower requirements for open-label norepinephrine (P < .001). Although no differences occurred in the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, 90-day mortality was lower in the vasopressin group.

In the Vasopressin vs Norepinephrine as Initial Therapy in Septic Shock (VANISH) trial, 204 patients with septic shock were randomized to norepinephrine and 204 to vasopressin as an initial vasoactive agent. Although no differences appeared between the groups for the two primary outcomes of 28-day mortality and days free of kidney failure, the vasopressin group had a lower frequency of the use of kidney replacement therapy (absolute difference –9.9% vs. –0.6%).

The VANISH study was limited by the fact that 85% of the patients were receiving norepinephrine when they were randomized; “therefore, this study is best described as evaluating catecholamine-adjunctive vasopressin,” the researchers say.

The third clinical trial, published only as an abstract, randomized 387 patients with septic shock who were already receiving low doses of norepinephrine to either norepinephrine with adjunctive vasopressin or norepinephrine alone. Rates of 28-day mortality were significantly lower in the vasopressin group (34.0% vs. 42.3%; P = .03).

Several meta-analyses involving multiple vasopressin receptor agonists have shown an association between reduced mortality and their use. In addition, recent observational studies have shown an association between lower mortality and the initiation of vasopressors at a lower norepinephrine-equivalent dose or lower lactate concentration.

As for clinical implications, the 2021 version of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines included a meta-analysis of 10 randomized, controlled trials that showed improved mortality associated with vasopressin use. This version of the guidelines was the first to address the timing of vasopressin initiation.

Because of insufficient evidence, the guidance was worded as “in our practice, vasopressin is usually started when the dose of norepinephrine is in the range of 0.25-0.5 mcg/kg/min,” the researchers write. “Although this is not a recommendation by the SSC for a specific threshold of catecholamine dose where vasopressin should be initiated, this statement represents clinician interest and the need for further research on the topic,” they note.

“Future studies of vasopressin should focus on the timing of its initiation at various clinical thresholds and patient selection for receipt of vasopressin,” they conclude.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Dr. Sacha has disclosed consulting for Wolters Kluwer.

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

Lower doses of initial vasopressin were associated with lower mortality when used as an adjunct in patients with septic shock, according to a review of three recent studies.

“Patients with septic shock require vasoactive agents to restore adequate tissue perfusion,” writes Gretchen L. Sacha, PharmD, of the Cleveland Clinic and colleagues.

Vasopressin is an attractive alternative to norepinephrine because it avoids the adverse effects associated with catecholamines, the researchers say. Although vasopressin is the recommended second-line adjunct after norepinephrine for patients with septic shock, findings to guide its use are inconsistent and data on the timing are limited, they note.

In a review published in the journal CHEST, the researchers summarize the three large, randomized trials to date examining the use of norepinephrine and vasopressin in patients with septic shock.

In the Vasopressin in Septic Shock Trial (VASST), 382 patients with septic shock were randomized to open-label norepinephrine with blinded norepinephrine, and 382 were randomized to open-label norepinephrine with blinded adjunctive vasopressin.

After initiation of the study drug, patients randomized to vasopressin had significantly lower requirements for open-label norepinephrine (P < .001). Although no differences occurred in the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, 90-day mortality was lower in the vasopressin group.

In the Vasopressin vs Norepinephrine as Initial Therapy in Septic Shock (VANISH) trial, 204 patients with septic shock were randomized to norepinephrine and 204 to vasopressin as an initial vasoactive agent. Although no differences appeared between the groups for the two primary outcomes of 28-day mortality and days free of kidney failure, the vasopressin group had a lower frequency of the use of kidney replacement therapy (absolute difference –9.9% vs. –0.6%).

The VANISH study was limited by the fact that 85% of the patients were receiving norepinephrine when they were randomized; “therefore, this study is best described as evaluating catecholamine-adjunctive vasopressin,” the researchers say.

The third clinical trial, published only as an abstract, randomized 387 patients with septic shock who were already receiving low doses of norepinephrine to either norepinephrine with adjunctive vasopressin or norepinephrine alone. Rates of 28-day mortality were significantly lower in the vasopressin group (34.0% vs. 42.3%; P = .03).

Several meta-analyses involving multiple vasopressin receptor agonists have shown an association between reduced mortality and their use. In addition, recent observational studies have shown an association between lower mortality and the initiation of vasopressors at a lower norepinephrine-equivalent dose or lower lactate concentration.

As for clinical implications, the 2021 version of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines included a meta-analysis of 10 randomized, controlled trials that showed improved mortality associated with vasopressin use. This version of the guidelines was the first to address the timing of vasopressin initiation.

Because of insufficient evidence, the guidance was worded as “in our practice, vasopressin is usually started when the dose of norepinephrine is in the range of 0.25-0.5 mcg/kg/min,” the researchers write. “Although this is not a recommendation by the SSC for a specific threshold of catecholamine dose where vasopressin should be initiated, this statement represents clinician interest and the need for further research on the topic,” they note.

“Future studies of vasopressin should focus on the timing of its initiation at various clinical thresholds and patient selection for receipt of vasopressin,” they conclude.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Dr. Sacha has disclosed consulting for Wolters Kluwer.

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

Neutropenia and radiological findings affected the presentation and diagnosis of pulmonary mucormycosis in adult patients, based on data from 114 individuals.

Diagnosis of pulmonary mucormycosis (PM), an invasive and potentially life-threatening fungal infection, is often delayed because of its variable presentation, wrote Anne Coste, MD, of La Cavale Blanche Hospital and Brest (France) University Hospital, and colleagues.

Improved diagnostic tools including molecular identification and image-guided lung biopsies are now available in many centers, but relations between underlying conditions, clinical presentations, and diagnostic methods have not been described, they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from all cases of PM seen at six hospitals in France between 2008 and 2019. PM cases were based on European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) criteria. Diabetes and trauma were included as additional host factors, and positive serum or tissue PCR (serum qPCR) were included as mycological evidence. Participants also underwent thoracic computed tomography (CT) scans.

The most common underlying conditions among the 114 patients were hematological malignancy (49%), allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (21%), and solid organ transplantation (17%).

Among the 40% of the cases that involved dissemination, the most common sites were the liver (48%), spleen (48%), brain (44%), and kidneys (37%).

A review of radiology findings showed consolidation in a majority of patients (58%), as well as pleural effusion (52%). Other findings included reversed halo sign (RHS, 26%), halo sign (24%), vascular abnormalities (26%), and cavity (23%).

Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was present in 46 of 96 patients (50%), and transthoracic lung biopsy was used for diagnosis in 8 of 11 (73%) patients with previous negative BALs.

Seventy patients had neutropenia. Overall, patients with neutropenia were significantly more likely than were those without neutropenia to show an angioinvasive presentation that included both RHS and disease dissemination (P < .05).

In addition, serum qPCR was positive in 42 of 53 patients for whom data were available (79%). Serum qPCR was significantly more likely to be positive in neutropenic patients (91% vs. 62%, P = .02). Positive qPCR was associated with an early diagnosis (P = .03) and treatment onset (P = .01).

Possible reasons for the high rate of disseminated PM in the current study may be the large number of patients with pulmonary involvement, use of body CT data, and availability of autopsy results (for 11% of cases), the researchers wrote in their discussion.

Neutropenia and radiological findings influence disease presentation and contribution of diagnostic tools during PM. Serum qPCR is more contributive in neutropenic patients and BAL examination in nonneutropenic patients. Lung biopsies are highly contributive in case of non-contributive BAL.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, the inability to calculate sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic methods, and lack of data on patients with COVID-19, the researchers noted. However, the results provide real-life information for clinicians in centers with current mycological platforms, they concluded.

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

Neutropenia and radiological findings affected the presentation and diagnosis of pulmonary mucormycosis in adult patients, based on data from 114 individuals.

Diagnosis of pulmonary mucormycosis (PM), an invasive and potentially life-threatening fungal infection, is often delayed because of its variable presentation, wrote Anne Coste, MD, of La Cavale Blanche Hospital and Brest (France) University Hospital, and colleagues.

Improved diagnostic tools including molecular identification and image-guided lung biopsies are now available in many centers, but relations between underlying conditions, clinical presentations, and diagnostic methods have not been described, they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from all cases of PM seen at six hospitals in France between 2008 and 2019. PM cases were based on European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) criteria. Diabetes and trauma were included as additional host factors, and positive serum or tissue PCR (serum qPCR) were included as mycological evidence. Participants also underwent thoracic computed tomography (CT) scans.

The most common underlying conditions among the 114 patients were hematological malignancy (49%), allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (21%), and solid organ transplantation (17%).

Among the 40% of the cases that involved dissemination, the most common sites were the liver (48%), spleen (48%), brain (44%), and kidneys (37%).

A review of radiology findings showed consolidation in a majority of patients (58%), as well as pleural effusion (52%). Other findings included reversed halo sign (RHS, 26%), halo sign (24%), vascular abnormalities (26%), and cavity (23%).

Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was present in 46 of 96 patients (50%), and transthoracic lung biopsy was used for diagnosis in 8 of 11 (73%) patients with previous negative BALs.

Seventy patients had neutropenia. Overall, patients with neutropenia were significantly more likely than were those without neutropenia to show an angioinvasive presentation that included both RHS and disease dissemination (P < .05).

In addition, serum qPCR was positive in 42 of 53 patients for whom data were available (79%). Serum qPCR was significantly more likely to be positive in neutropenic patients (91% vs. 62%, P = .02). Positive qPCR was associated with an early diagnosis (P = .03) and treatment onset (P = .01).

Possible reasons for the high rate of disseminated PM in the current study may be the large number of patients with pulmonary involvement, use of body CT data, and availability of autopsy results (for 11% of cases), the researchers wrote in their discussion.

Neutropenia and radiological findings influence disease presentation and contribution of diagnostic tools during PM. Serum qPCR is more contributive in neutropenic patients and BAL examination in nonneutropenic patients. Lung biopsies are highly contributive in case of non-contributive BAL.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, the inability to calculate sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic methods, and lack of data on patients with COVID-19, the researchers noted. However, the results provide real-life information for clinicians in centers with current mycological platforms, they concluded.

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

Neutropenia and radiological findings affected the presentation and diagnosis of pulmonary mucormycosis in adult patients, based on data from 114 individuals.

Diagnosis of pulmonary mucormycosis (PM), an invasive and potentially life-threatening fungal infection, is often delayed because of its variable presentation, wrote Anne Coste, MD, of La Cavale Blanche Hospital and Brest (France) University Hospital, and colleagues.

Improved diagnostic tools including molecular identification and image-guided lung biopsies are now available in many centers, but relations between underlying conditions, clinical presentations, and diagnostic methods have not been described, they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from all cases of PM seen at six hospitals in France between 2008 and 2019. PM cases were based on European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) criteria. Diabetes and trauma were included as additional host factors, and positive serum or tissue PCR (serum qPCR) were included as mycological evidence. Participants also underwent thoracic computed tomography (CT) scans.

The most common underlying conditions among the 114 patients were hematological malignancy (49%), allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (21%), and solid organ transplantation (17%).

Among the 40% of the cases that involved dissemination, the most common sites were the liver (48%), spleen (48%), brain (44%), and kidneys (37%).

A review of radiology findings showed consolidation in a majority of patients (58%), as well as pleural effusion (52%). Other findings included reversed halo sign (RHS, 26%), halo sign (24%), vascular abnormalities (26%), and cavity (23%).

Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was present in 46 of 96 patients (50%), and transthoracic lung biopsy was used for diagnosis in 8 of 11 (73%) patients with previous negative BALs.

Seventy patients had neutropenia. Overall, patients with neutropenia were significantly more likely than were those without neutropenia to show an angioinvasive presentation that included both RHS and disease dissemination (P < .05).

In addition, serum qPCR was positive in 42 of 53 patients for whom data were available (79%). Serum qPCR was significantly more likely to be positive in neutropenic patients (91% vs. 62%, P = .02). Positive qPCR was associated with an early diagnosis (P = .03) and treatment onset (P = .01).

Possible reasons for the high rate of disseminated PM in the current study may be the large number of patients with pulmonary involvement, use of body CT data, and availability of autopsy results (for 11% of cases), the researchers wrote in their discussion.

Neutropenia and radiological findings influence disease presentation and contribution of diagnostic tools during PM. Serum qPCR is more contributive in neutropenic patients and BAL examination in nonneutropenic patients. Lung biopsies are highly contributive in case of non-contributive BAL.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, the inability to calculate sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic methods, and lack of data on patients with COVID-19, the researchers noted. However, the results provide real-life information for clinicians in centers with current mycological platforms, they concluded.

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

A popular ingredient in the American diet has been linked to ulcerative colitis. The ingredient is soybean oil, which is very common in processed foods. In fact, U.S. per capita consumption of soybean oil increased more than 1,000-fold during the 20th century.

In a study from the University of California, Riverside, and UC Davis, published in Gut Microbes, mice fed a diet high in soybean oil were more at risk of developing colitis. 

The likely culprit? Linoleic acid, an omega-6 fatty acid that composes up to 60% of soybean oil.

Small amounts of linoleic acid help maintain the body’s water balance. But Americans derive as much as 10% of their daily energy from linoleic acid, when they need only 1%-2%, the researchers say.

The findings build on earlier research linking a high-linoleic acid diet with inflammatory bowel disease, or IBD, in humans. (Previous research in mice has also linked high consumption of the oil with obesity and diabetes in the rodents.)

For the new study, the researchers wanted to drill down into how linoleic acid affects the gut.
 

How linoleic acid may promote inflammation

In mice, the soybean oil diet upset the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids in the gut. This led to a decrease in endocannabinoids, lipid-based molecules that help block inflammation.

Enzymes that metabolize fatty acids are “shared between two pathways,” said study coauthor Frances Sladek, PhD, professor of cell biology at UC Riverside. “If you swamp the system with linoleic acid, you’ll have less enzymes available to metabolize omega-3s into good endocannabinoids.”

The endocannabinoid system has been linked to “visceral pain” in the gut,  said Punyanganie de Silva, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study. But the relationship between the endocannabinoid system and inflammation has yet to be fully explored.

“This is one of the first papers that has looked at the association between linoleic acid and the endocannabinoid system,” Dr. de Silva said. “[The researchers] propose a potential new mechanism of how linoleic acid may increase inflammation” – that is, through its impact on the endocannabinoid system. 
 

Changes in the gut microbiome

The gut microbiome of the mice also showed increased amounts of adherent invasive E. coli, a type of bacteria that grows by using linoleic acid as a carbon source. A “very close relative” of this bacteria has been linked to IBD in humans, Dr. Sladek said.

Using a method known as metabolomics, the researchers studied 3,000 metabolites in the intestinal cells of both the mice and the bacteria. Endocannabinoids decreased in both.

“We were actually quite surprised. I didn’t realize that bacteria made endocannabinoids,” Dr. Sladek said.

Helpful bacteria, such as the probiotic lactobacillus species, died off. The mice also had increased levels of oxylipins, which are correlated with obesity in mice and colitis in humans.
 

A high–linoleic acid diet could mean a leaky gut

Linoleic acid binds to a protein known as HNF-4 alpha. Disrupting the expression of this protein can weaken the intestinal barrier, letting toxins flow into the body – more commonly known as leaky gut. Mice on the soybean oil diet had decreased levels of the protein and more porous intestinal barriers, raising the risk for inflammation and colitis. “The HNF-4 alpha protein is conserved from mouse to human, so whatever’s happening to it in the context of the mouse gut, there’s a very high chance that a similar effect could be seen in humans as well,” said study coauthor Poonamjot Deol, PhD, an assistant professional researcher at UC Riverside.

Still, Dr. de Silva urges “some caution when interpreting these results,” given that “this is still experimental and needs to be reproduced in clinical studies as humans have a far more varied microbiome and more variable environmental exposures than these very controlled mouse model studies.”

Dr. de Silva says cooking with olive oil can “help increase omega-3 to omega-6 ratios” and advises eating a varied diet that includes omega-3 fats, such as flaxseed and walnuts, and minimal amounts of processed foods and saturated fats.

Looking ahead, endocannabinoids are being explored as “a potential therapy for treating IBD symptoms,” said Dr. Deol. She hopes to delve further into how linoleic acid affects the endocannabinoid system.

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

A popular ingredient in the American diet has been linked to ulcerative colitis. The ingredient is soybean oil, which is very common in processed foods. In fact, U.S. per capita consumption of soybean oil increased more than 1,000-fold during the 20th century.

In a study from the University of California, Riverside, and UC Davis, published in Gut Microbes, mice fed a diet high in soybean oil were more at risk of developing colitis. 

The likely culprit? Linoleic acid, an omega-6 fatty acid that composes up to 60% of soybean oil.

Small amounts of linoleic acid help maintain the body’s water balance. But Americans derive as much as 10% of their daily energy from linoleic acid, when they need only 1%-2%, the researchers say.

The findings build on earlier research linking a high-linoleic acid diet with inflammatory bowel disease, or IBD, in humans. (Previous research in mice has also linked high consumption of the oil with obesity and diabetes in the rodents.)

For the new study, the researchers wanted to drill down into how linoleic acid affects the gut.
 

How linoleic acid may promote inflammation

In mice, the soybean oil diet upset the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids in the gut. This led to a decrease in endocannabinoids, lipid-based molecules that help block inflammation.

Enzymes that metabolize fatty acids are “shared between two pathways,” said study coauthor Frances Sladek, PhD, professor of cell biology at UC Riverside. “If you swamp the system with linoleic acid, you’ll have less enzymes available to metabolize omega-3s into good endocannabinoids.”

The endocannabinoid system has been linked to “visceral pain” in the gut,  said Punyanganie de Silva, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study. But the relationship between the endocannabinoid system and inflammation has yet to be fully explored.

“This is one of the first papers that has looked at the association between linoleic acid and the endocannabinoid system,” Dr. de Silva said. “[The researchers] propose a potential new mechanism of how linoleic acid may increase inflammation” – that is, through its impact on the endocannabinoid system. 
 

Changes in the gut microbiome

The gut microbiome of the mice also showed increased amounts of adherent invasive E. coli, a type of bacteria that grows by using linoleic acid as a carbon source. A “very close relative” of this bacteria has been linked to IBD in humans, Dr. Sladek said.

Using a method known as metabolomics, the researchers studied 3,000 metabolites in the intestinal cells of both the mice and the bacteria. Endocannabinoids decreased in both.

“We were actually quite surprised. I didn’t realize that bacteria made endocannabinoids,” Dr. Sladek said.

Helpful bacteria, such as the probiotic lactobacillus species, died off. The mice also had increased levels of oxylipins, which are correlated with obesity in mice and colitis in humans.
 

A high–linoleic acid diet could mean a leaky gut

Linoleic acid binds to a protein known as HNF-4 alpha. Disrupting the expression of this protein can weaken the intestinal barrier, letting toxins flow into the body – more commonly known as leaky gut. Mice on the soybean oil diet had decreased levels of the protein and more porous intestinal barriers, raising the risk for inflammation and colitis. “The HNF-4 alpha protein is conserved from mouse to human, so whatever’s happening to it in the context of the mouse gut, there’s a very high chance that a similar effect could be seen in humans as well,” said study coauthor Poonamjot Deol, PhD, an assistant professional researcher at UC Riverside.

Still, Dr. de Silva urges “some caution when interpreting these results,” given that “this is still experimental and needs to be reproduced in clinical studies as humans have a far more varied microbiome and more variable environmental exposures than these very controlled mouse model studies.”

Dr. de Silva says cooking with olive oil can “help increase omega-3 to omega-6 ratios” and advises eating a varied diet that includes omega-3 fats, such as flaxseed and walnuts, and minimal amounts of processed foods and saturated fats.

Looking ahead, endocannabinoids are being explored as “a potential therapy for treating IBD symptoms,” said Dr. Deol. She hopes to delve further into how linoleic acid affects the endocannabinoid system.

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

A popular ingredient in the American diet has been linked to ulcerative colitis. The ingredient is soybean oil, which is very common in processed foods. In fact, U.S. per capita consumption of soybean oil increased more than 1,000-fold during the 20th century.

In a study from the University of California, Riverside, and UC Davis, published in Gut Microbes, mice fed a diet high in soybean oil were more at risk of developing colitis. 

The likely culprit? Linoleic acid, an omega-6 fatty acid that composes up to 60% of soybean oil.

Small amounts of linoleic acid help maintain the body’s water balance. But Americans derive as much as 10% of their daily energy from linoleic acid, when they need only 1%-2%, the researchers say.

The findings build on earlier research linking a high-linoleic acid diet with inflammatory bowel disease, or IBD, in humans. (Previous research in mice has also linked high consumption of the oil with obesity and diabetes in the rodents.)

For the new study, the researchers wanted to drill down into how linoleic acid affects the gut.
 

How linoleic acid may promote inflammation

In mice, the soybean oil diet upset the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids in the gut. This led to a decrease in endocannabinoids, lipid-based molecules that help block inflammation.

Enzymes that metabolize fatty acids are “shared between two pathways,” said study coauthor Frances Sladek, PhD, professor of cell biology at UC Riverside. “If you swamp the system with linoleic acid, you’ll have less enzymes available to metabolize omega-3s into good endocannabinoids.”

The endocannabinoid system has been linked to “visceral pain” in the gut,  said Punyanganie de Silva, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study. But the relationship between the endocannabinoid system and inflammation has yet to be fully explored.

“This is one of the first papers that has looked at the association between linoleic acid and the endocannabinoid system,” Dr. de Silva said. “[The researchers] propose a potential new mechanism of how linoleic acid may increase inflammation” – that is, through its impact on the endocannabinoid system. 
 

Changes in the gut microbiome

The gut microbiome of the mice also showed increased amounts of adherent invasive E. coli, a type of bacteria that grows by using linoleic acid as a carbon source. A “very close relative” of this bacteria has been linked to IBD in humans, Dr. Sladek said.

Using a method known as metabolomics, the researchers studied 3,000 metabolites in the intestinal cells of both the mice and the bacteria. Endocannabinoids decreased in both.

“We were actually quite surprised. I didn’t realize that bacteria made endocannabinoids,” Dr. Sladek said.

Helpful bacteria, such as the probiotic lactobacillus species, died off. The mice also had increased levels of oxylipins, which are correlated with obesity in mice and colitis in humans.
 

A high–linoleic acid diet could mean a leaky gut

Linoleic acid binds to a protein known as HNF-4 alpha. Disrupting the expression of this protein can weaken the intestinal barrier, letting toxins flow into the body – more commonly known as leaky gut. Mice on the soybean oil diet had decreased levels of the protein and more porous intestinal barriers, raising the risk for inflammation and colitis. “The HNF-4 alpha protein is conserved from mouse to human, so whatever’s happening to it in the context of the mouse gut, there’s a very high chance that a similar effect could be seen in humans as well,” said study coauthor Poonamjot Deol, PhD, an assistant professional researcher at UC Riverside.

Still, Dr. de Silva urges “some caution when interpreting these results,” given that “this is still experimental and needs to be reproduced in clinical studies as humans have a far more varied microbiome and more variable environmental exposures than these very controlled mouse model studies.”

Dr. de Silva says cooking with olive oil can “help increase omega-3 to omega-6 ratios” and advises eating a varied diet that includes omega-3 fats, such as flaxseed and walnuts, and minimal amounts of processed foods and saturated fats.

Looking ahead, endocannabinoids are being explored as “a potential therapy for treating IBD symptoms,” said Dr. Deol. She hopes to delve further into how linoleic acid affects the endocannabinoid system.

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

BALTIMORE – Receiving the first dose of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine at age 9, rather than bundling it with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines, appears to increase the likelihood that children will complete the HPV vaccine series, according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.

Changing attitudes

“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.

Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.

However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.

“The bundling was really to vaccinate people by the age of 13, thinking that onset of sexual activity was after that,” study author Sidika Kajtezovic, MD, a resident at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Obstetrics and Gynecology, said in an interview. But Dr. Kajtezovic said she delivers babies for 13-year-old patients. “Kids are having sex sooner or sooner.” It’s also clear that using the bundling strategy is not making up the entire gap right now: Ninety percent of children are getting the meningococcal vaccine while only 49% are getting the HPV vaccine, Dr. Kajtezovic pointed out. “There’s a disconnect happening there, even with the bundling,” she said.
 

Debundling vaccines

Dr. Kajtezovic and her colleagues used a national database of employee-sponsored health insurance to analyze the records of 100,857 children who were continuously enrolled in a plan from age 9 in 2015 to age 13 in 2019. They calculated the odds of children completing the HPV vaccine series based on whether they started the series before, at the same time as, or after the Tdap vaccination.

Youth who received the HPV vaccine before their Tdap vaccine had 38% greater odds of completing the series – getting both doses – than did those who received the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap vaccine. Meanwhile, in line with prior evidence, those who got the first HPV dose after their Tdap were less likely – 68% lower odds – to complete the two- or three-dose (if starting above age 14) series.

The researchers identified several other factors that were linked to completing the HPV vaccine series. Females had greater odds than did males of completing the series, as did those living in urban, rather than rural, areas. Other factors associated with completing the series included living in the Northeast United States and receiving primary care from a pediatrician rather than a family medicine physician.
 

Timing is important

“I am encouraged by the findings of this study,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “However, I would have liked the authors to expand the age range a bit higher. There are data that continuing to discuss the HPV vaccine with parents and teens will increase uptake into the later teen years.”

One challenge is that research shows attendance at primary care visits declines in older adolescence. Since there is no second Tdap or meningitis shot, families need to return for the second HPV vaccine dose after those shots, though they could get the second dose at the same time as other two vaccines if they receive the first dose before age 11. There’s also evidence suggesting that providers find conversations about the HPV vaccine easier when sexual activity is not the focus.

“I often feel that, before a child reaches adolescence, they’re almost, in a way, not sexualized yet, so talking about cancer prevention for an 8- or 9-year-old sometimes sounds a little different to patients versus protecting your 12-year-old, who’s starting to go through adolescence and developing breasts” and other signs of puberty, Dr. Kajtezovic said. Keeping the focus of HPV vaccine discussions on cancer prevention also allows providers to point out the protection against anal cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer, and head and neck cancer. “They are horrible, and even if they’re treatable, they’re often very hard to treat at an advanced stage,” Dr. Kajtezovic said. “The surgery required is so life disabling and disfiguring.”

The HPV Roundtable advises continuing bundling at practices having success with it but encourages practices to consider earlier vaccination if their uptake is lagging. Quality improvement initiatives, such as earlier electronic medical record prompts and multi-level interventions in pediatric practices, have shown substantial increases in HPV vaccine uptake at 9 and 10 years old. One survey in 2021 found that one in five primary care providers already routinely recommend the HPV vaccine at ages 9-10, and nearly half of others would consider doing so.

“My hope is in the next few years, when [the CDC] refreshes their vaccine recommendations, that they will either unbundle it or move the bar a few years earlier so that you can initiate it to encourage earlier initiation,” Dr. Kajtezovic said.

Dr. Ault had no other disclosures besides prior service on ACIP. Dr. Kajtezovic had no disclosures.

BALTIMORE – Receiving the first dose of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine at age 9, rather than bundling it with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines, appears to increase the likelihood that children will complete the HPV vaccine series, according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.

Changing attitudes

“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.

Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.

However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.

“The bundling was really to vaccinate people by the age of 13, thinking that onset of sexual activity was after that,” study author Sidika Kajtezovic, MD, a resident at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Obstetrics and Gynecology, said in an interview. But Dr. Kajtezovic said she delivers babies for 13-year-old patients. “Kids are having sex sooner or sooner.” It’s also clear that using the bundling strategy is not making up the entire gap right now: Ninety percent of children are getting the meningococcal vaccine while only 49% are getting the HPV vaccine, Dr. Kajtezovic pointed out. “There’s a disconnect happening there, even with the bundling,” she said.
 

Debundling vaccines

Dr. Kajtezovic and her colleagues used a national database of employee-sponsored health insurance to analyze the records of 100,857 children who were continuously enrolled in a plan from age 9 in 2015 to age 13 in 2019. They calculated the odds of children completing the HPV vaccine series based on whether they started the series before, at the same time as, or after the Tdap vaccination.

Youth who received the HPV vaccine before their Tdap vaccine had 38% greater odds of completing the series – getting both doses – than did those who received the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap vaccine. Meanwhile, in line with prior evidence, those who got the first HPV dose after their Tdap were less likely – 68% lower odds – to complete the two- or three-dose (if starting above age 14) series.

The researchers identified several other factors that were linked to completing the HPV vaccine series. Females had greater odds than did males of completing the series, as did those living in urban, rather than rural, areas. Other factors associated with completing the series included living in the Northeast United States and receiving primary care from a pediatrician rather than a family medicine physician.
 

Timing is important

“I am encouraged by the findings of this study,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “However, I would have liked the authors to expand the age range a bit higher. There are data that continuing to discuss the HPV vaccine with parents and teens will increase uptake into the later teen years.”

One challenge is that research shows attendance at primary care visits declines in older adolescence. Since there is no second Tdap or meningitis shot, families need to return for the second HPV vaccine dose after those shots, though they could get the second dose at the same time as other two vaccines if they receive the first dose before age 11. There’s also evidence suggesting that providers find conversations about the HPV vaccine easier when sexual activity is not the focus.

“I often feel that, before a child reaches adolescence, they’re almost, in a way, not sexualized yet, so talking about cancer prevention for an 8- or 9-year-old sometimes sounds a little different to patients versus protecting your 12-year-old, who’s starting to go through adolescence and developing breasts” and other signs of puberty, Dr. Kajtezovic said. Keeping the focus of HPV vaccine discussions on cancer prevention also allows providers to point out the protection against anal cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer, and head and neck cancer. “They are horrible, and even if they’re treatable, they’re often very hard to treat at an advanced stage,” Dr. Kajtezovic said. “The surgery required is so life disabling and disfiguring.”

The HPV Roundtable advises continuing bundling at practices having success with it but encourages practices to consider earlier vaccination if their uptake is lagging. Quality improvement initiatives, such as earlier electronic medical record prompts and multi-level interventions in pediatric practices, have shown substantial increases in HPV vaccine uptake at 9 and 10 years old. One survey in 2021 found that one in five primary care providers already routinely recommend the HPV vaccine at ages 9-10, and nearly half of others would consider doing so.

“My hope is in the next few years, when [the CDC] refreshes their vaccine recommendations, that they will either unbundle it or move the bar a few years earlier so that you can initiate it to encourage earlier initiation,” Dr. Kajtezovic said.

Dr. Ault had no other disclosures besides prior service on ACIP. Dr. Kajtezovic had no disclosures.

BALTIMORE – Receiving the first dose of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine at age 9, rather than bundling it with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines, appears to increase the likelihood that children will complete the HPV vaccine series, according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.

Changing attitudes

“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.

Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.

However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.

“The bundling was really to vaccinate people by the age of 13, thinking that onset of sexual activity was after that,” study author Sidika Kajtezovic, MD, a resident at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Obstetrics and Gynecology, said in an interview. But Dr. Kajtezovic said she delivers babies for 13-year-old patients. “Kids are having sex sooner or sooner.” It’s also clear that using the bundling strategy is not making up the entire gap right now: Ninety percent of children are getting the meningococcal vaccine while only 49% are getting the HPV vaccine, Dr. Kajtezovic pointed out. “There’s a disconnect happening there, even with the bundling,” she said.
 

Debundling vaccines

Dr. Kajtezovic and her colleagues used a national database of employee-sponsored health insurance to analyze the records of 100,857 children who were continuously enrolled in a plan from age 9 in 2015 to age 13 in 2019. They calculated the odds of children completing the HPV vaccine series based on whether they started the series before, at the same time as, or after the Tdap vaccination.

Youth who received the HPV vaccine before their Tdap vaccine had 38% greater odds of completing the series – getting both doses – than did those who received the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap vaccine. Meanwhile, in line with prior evidence, those who got the first HPV dose after their Tdap were less likely – 68% lower odds – to complete the two- or three-dose (if starting above age 14) series.

The researchers identified several other factors that were linked to completing the HPV vaccine series. Females had greater odds than did males of completing the series, as did those living in urban, rather than rural, areas. Other factors associated with completing the series included living in the Northeast United States and receiving primary care from a pediatrician rather than a family medicine physician.
 

Timing is important

“I am encouraged by the findings of this study,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “However, I would have liked the authors to expand the age range a bit higher. There are data that continuing to discuss the HPV vaccine with parents and teens will increase uptake into the later teen years.”

One challenge is that research shows attendance at primary care visits declines in older adolescence. Since there is no second Tdap or meningitis shot, families need to return for the second HPV vaccine dose after those shots, though they could get the second dose at the same time as other two vaccines if they receive the first dose before age 11. There’s also evidence suggesting that providers find conversations about the HPV vaccine easier when sexual activity is not the focus.

“I often feel that, before a child reaches adolescence, they’re almost, in a way, not sexualized yet, so talking about cancer prevention for an 8- or 9-year-old sometimes sounds a little different to patients versus protecting your 12-year-old, who’s starting to go through adolescence and developing breasts” and other signs of puberty, Dr. Kajtezovic said. Keeping the focus of HPV vaccine discussions on cancer prevention also allows providers to point out the protection against anal cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer, and head and neck cancer. “They are horrible, and even if they’re treatable, they’re often very hard to treat at an advanced stage,” Dr. Kajtezovic said. “The surgery required is so life disabling and disfiguring.”

The HPV Roundtable advises continuing bundling at practices having success with it but encourages practices to consider earlier vaccination if their uptake is lagging. Quality improvement initiatives, such as earlier electronic medical record prompts and multi-level interventions in pediatric practices, have shown substantial increases in HPV vaccine uptake at 9 and 10 years old. One survey in 2021 found that one in five primary care providers already routinely recommend the HPV vaccine at ages 9-10, and nearly half of others would consider doing so.

“My hope is in the next few years, when [the CDC] refreshes their vaccine recommendations, that they will either unbundle it or move the bar a few years earlier so that you can initiate it to encourage earlier initiation,” Dr. Kajtezovic said.

Dr. Ault had no other disclosures besides prior service on ACIP. Dr. Kajtezovic had no disclosures.

Family physicians receive less private insurer reimbursement for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine than do pediatricians, according to a new analysis in Family Medicine.

HPV is the most expensive of all routine pediatric vaccines and the reimbursement by third-party payers varies widely. The concerns about HPV reimbursement often appear on clinician surveys.

This study, led by Yenan Zhu, PhD, who was with the department of public health sciences, college of medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, at the time of the research, found that, on average, pediatricians received higher reimbursement ($216.07) for HPV vaccine cost when compared with family physicians ($211.33), internists ($212.97), nurse practitioners ($212.91), and “other” clinicians who administer the vaccine ($213.29) (P values for all comparisons were < .001).

The final sample for this study included 34,247 clinicians.

The net return from vaccine cost reimbursements was lowest for family physicians ($0.34 per HPV vaccine dose administered) and highest for pediatricians ($5.08 per HPV vaccine dose administered).

“Adequate cost reimbursement by third-party payers is a critical enabling factor for clinicians to continue offering vaccines,” the authors wrote.

The authors concluded that “reimbursement for HPV vaccine costs by private payers is adequate; however, return margins are small for nonpediatric specialties.”
 

CDC, AAP differ in recommendations

In the United States, private insurers use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine list price as a benchmark.

Overall in this study, HPV vaccine cost reimbursement by private payers was at or above the CDC list price of $210.99 but below the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations ($263.74). 

The study found that every $1 increment in return was associated with an increase in HPV vaccine doses administered. That was highest for family physicians at 0.08% per dollar.

The modeling showed that changing the HPV vaccine reimbursement to the AAP-recommended level could translate to “an estimated 18,643 additional HPV vaccine doses administrated by pediatricians, 4,041 additional doses by family physicians, and 433 doses by ‘other’ specialties in 2017-2018.”

The authors noted that U.S. vaccination coverage has improved in recent years but initiation and completion rates are lower among privately insured adolescents (4.6% lower for initiation and 2.0% points lower for completion in 2021), compared with adolescents covered under public insurance.

Why the difference among specialties?

Variation in reimbursements might be tied to the ability to negotiate reimbursements for adolescent vaccines, the authors said.

“For instance, pediatricians may be able to negotiate higher cost reimbursement, compared with nonpediatric specialties, given that adolescents constitute a large fraction of their patient volume,” they wrote.

Dr. Zhu and colleagues wrote that it should be noted that HPV vaccine cost reimbursement to family practitioners was considerably less than other specialties and they are barely breaking even though they have the second-highest volume of HPV vaccinations (after pediatricians).

The authors acknowledged that it may not be possible to raise reimbursement to the AAP level, but added that “a reasonable increase that can cover direct and indirect expenses (acquisition cost, storage cost, personnel cost for monitoring inventory, insurance, waste, and lost opportunity costs) will reduce the financial strain on nonpediatric clinicians.” That may encourage clinicians to stock and offer the vaccine.
 

Limitations

The researchers acknowledged several limitations. The models did not account for factors such as vaccination bundling, physicians’ recommendation style or differences in knowledge of the vaccination schedule.

The models were also not able to adjust for whether a clinic had reminder prompts in the electronic health records, the overhead costs of vaccines, or vaccine knowledge or hesitancy on the part of the adolescents’ parents.

Additionally, they used data from one private payer, which limits generalizability.

Researchers identified a sample of adolescents eligible for the HPV vaccine (9-14 years old) enrolled in a large private health insurance plan during 2017-2018. Data from states with universal or universal select vaccine purchasing were excluded. These states included Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, South Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

One coauthor reported receiving a consulting fee from Merck on unrelated projects. Another coauthor has provided consultancy to Value Analytics Labs on unrelated projects. All other authors declared no competing interests.

Family physicians receive less private insurer reimbursement for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine than do pediatricians, according to a new analysis in Family Medicine.

HPV is the most expensive of all routine pediatric vaccines and the reimbursement by third-party payers varies widely. The concerns about HPV reimbursement often appear on clinician surveys.

This study, led by Yenan Zhu, PhD, who was with the department of public health sciences, college of medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, at the time of the research, found that, on average, pediatricians received higher reimbursement ($216.07) for HPV vaccine cost when compared with family physicians ($211.33), internists ($212.97), nurse practitioners ($212.91), and “other” clinicians who administer the vaccine ($213.29) (P values for all comparisons were < .001).

The final sample for this study included 34,247 clinicians.

The net return from vaccine cost reimbursements was lowest for family physicians ($0.34 per HPV vaccine dose administered) and highest for pediatricians ($5.08 per HPV vaccine dose administered).

“Adequate cost reimbursement by third-party payers is a critical enabling factor for clinicians to continue offering vaccines,” the authors wrote.

The authors concluded that “reimbursement for HPV vaccine costs by private payers is adequate; however, return margins are small for nonpediatric specialties.”
 

CDC, AAP differ in recommendations

In the United States, private insurers use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine list price as a benchmark.

Overall in this study, HPV vaccine cost reimbursement by private payers was at or above the CDC list price of $210.99 but below the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations ($263.74). 

The study found that every $1 increment in return was associated with an increase in HPV vaccine doses administered. That was highest for family physicians at 0.08% per dollar.

The modeling showed that changing the HPV vaccine reimbursement to the AAP-recommended level could translate to “an estimated 18,643 additional HPV vaccine doses administrated by pediatricians, 4,041 additional doses by family physicians, and 433 doses by ‘other’ specialties in 2017-2018.”

The authors noted that U.S. vaccination coverage has improved in recent years but initiation and completion rates are lower among privately insured adolescents (4.6% lower for initiation and 2.0% points lower for completion in 2021), compared with adolescents covered under public insurance.

Why the difference among specialties?

Variation in reimbursements might be tied to the ability to negotiate reimbursements for adolescent vaccines, the authors said.

“For instance, pediatricians may be able to negotiate higher cost reimbursement, compared with nonpediatric specialties, given that adolescents constitute a large fraction of their patient volume,” they wrote.

Dr. Zhu and colleagues wrote that it should be noted that HPV vaccine cost reimbursement to family practitioners was considerably less than other specialties and they are barely breaking even though they have the second-highest volume of HPV vaccinations (after pediatricians).

The authors acknowledged that it may not be possible to raise reimbursement to the AAP level, but added that “a reasonable increase that can cover direct and indirect expenses (acquisition cost, storage cost, personnel cost for monitoring inventory, insurance, waste, and lost opportunity costs) will reduce the financial strain on nonpediatric clinicians.” That may encourage clinicians to stock and offer the vaccine.
 

Limitations

The researchers acknowledged several limitations. The models did not account for factors such as vaccination bundling, physicians’ recommendation style or differences in knowledge of the vaccination schedule.

The models were also not able to adjust for whether a clinic had reminder prompts in the electronic health records, the overhead costs of vaccines, or vaccine knowledge or hesitancy on the part of the adolescents’ parents.

Additionally, they used data from one private payer, which limits generalizability.

Researchers identified a sample of adolescents eligible for the HPV vaccine (9-14 years old) enrolled in a large private health insurance plan during 2017-2018. Data from states with universal or universal select vaccine purchasing were excluded. These states included Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, South Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

One coauthor reported receiving a consulting fee from Merck on unrelated projects. Another coauthor has provided consultancy to Value Analytics Labs on unrelated projects. All other authors declared no competing interests.

Family physicians receive less private insurer reimbursement for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine than do pediatricians, according to a new analysis in Family Medicine.

HPV is the most expensive of all routine pediatric vaccines and the reimbursement by third-party payers varies widely. The concerns about HPV reimbursement often appear on clinician surveys.

This study, led by Yenan Zhu, PhD, who was with the department of public health sciences, college of medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, at the time of the research, found that, on average, pediatricians received higher reimbursement ($216.07) for HPV vaccine cost when compared with family physicians ($211.33), internists ($212.97), nurse practitioners ($212.91), and “other” clinicians who administer the vaccine ($213.29) (P values for all comparisons were < .001).

The final sample for this study included 34,247 clinicians.

The net return from vaccine cost reimbursements was lowest for family physicians ($0.34 per HPV vaccine dose administered) and highest for pediatricians ($5.08 per HPV vaccine dose administered).

“Adequate cost reimbursement by third-party payers is a critical enabling factor for clinicians to continue offering vaccines,” the authors wrote.

The authors concluded that “reimbursement for HPV vaccine costs by private payers is adequate; however, return margins are small for nonpediatric specialties.”
 

CDC, AAP differ in recommendations

In the United States, private insurers use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine list price as a benchmark.

Overall in this study, HPV vaccine cost reimbursement by private payers was at or above the CDC list price of $210.99 but below the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations ($263.74). 

The study found that every $1 increment in return was associated with an increase in HPV vaccine doses administered. That was highest for family physicians at 0.08% per dollar.

The modeling showed that changing the HPV vaccine reimbursement to the AAP-recommended level could translate to “an estimated 18,643 additional HPV vaccine doses administrated by pediatricians, 4,041 additional doses by family physicians, and 433 doses by ‘other’ specialties in 2017-2018.”

The authors noted that U.S. vaccination coverage has improved in recent years but initiation and completion rates are lower among privately insured adolescents (4.6% lower for initiation and 2.0% points lower for completion in 2021), compared with adolescents covered under public insurance.

Why the difference among specialties?

Variation in reimbursements might be tied to the ability to negotiate reimbursements for adolescent vaccines, the authors said.

“For instance, pediatricians may be able to negotiate higher cost reimbursement, compared with nonpediatric specialties, given that adolescents constitute a large fraction of their patient volume,” they wrote.

Dr. Zhu and colleagues wrote that it should be noted that HPV vaccine cost reimbursement to family practitioners was considerably less than other specialties and they are barely breaking even though they have the second-highest volume of HPV vaccinations (after pediatricians).

The authors acknowledged that it may not be possible to raise reimbursement to the AAP level, but added that “a reasonable increase that can cover direct and indirect expenses (acquisition cost, storage cost, personnel cost for monitoring inventory, insurance, waste, and lost opportunity costs) will reduce the financial strain on nonpediatric clinicians.” That may encourage clinicians to stock and offer the vaccine.
 

Limitations

The researchers acknowledged several limitations. The models did not account for factors such as vaccination bundling, physicians’ recommendation style or differences in knowledge of the vaccination schedule.

The models were also not able to adjust for whether a clinic had reminder prompts in the electronic health records, the overhead costs of vaccines, or vaccine knowledge or hesitancy on the part of the adolescents’ parents.

Additionally, they used data from one private payer, which limits generalizability.

Researchers identified a sample of adolescents eligible for the HPV vaccine (9-14 years old) enrolled in a large private health insurance plan during 2017-2018. Data from states with universal or universal select vaccine purchasing were excluded. These states included Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, South Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

One coauthor reported receiving a consulting fee from Merck on unrelated projects. Another coauthor has provided consultancy to Value Analytics Labs on unrelated projects. All other authors declared no competing interests.

In patients aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis over 4 weeks, according to results from a pair of phase two studies.

“Limited topical treatments are approved for children younger than 12 years old with psoriasis,” researchers led by Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, wrote in their abstract. The results were presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Roflumilast cream 0.3% (Zoryve) is a once-daily, topical nonsteroidal treatment from Arcutis Biotherapeutics. A phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2022 for mild, moderate and severe psoriasis in individuals aged 12 and older, including intertriginous psoriasis.

For the analysis, Dr. Hebert, chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, and colleagues conducted two 4-week, phase 2, open-label safety studies of roflumilast cream 0.3%.

One, study 216, enrolled 10 children aged 2-5, and all but one were Black. The other, study 215, enrolled 20 children aged 6-11, and half were Black and nearly half were White. At baseline, patients had 2% or greater body surface area (BSA) involvement and an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of at least mild.

Caregivers applied roflumilast cream to all affected areas once daily for 28 days. The researchers collected pharmacokinetic samples at week 2 and week 4. The primary endpoints were pharmacokinetic, safety, and tolerability.

Efficacy was evaluated as exploratory endpoints: An IGA of clear or almost clear plus a 2-grade or more improvement from baseline, a 50% or greater improvement and a 75% or greater improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-50 and PASI-75), a 4-point or greater reduction in the Worst Itch–Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) in patients with a baseline score of 4 or greater, a mean change from baseline in BSA, and improvement in the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI).

At baseline, the mean BSA was similar for patients enrolled in studies 216 and 215 (9.6% and 8.8%, respectively), and 80% of all patients had baseline IGA of moderate. By week 2, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose plasma concentrations among patients in the younger group were 2.15 and 22.4 ng/mL, compared with 3.15 and 28.9 ng/mL among those in the older group. At week 4, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose concentrations were 2.04 and 15.8 ng/mL in the younger group (study 216), compared with 1.68 and 15.7 ng/mL in the older group (study 215).

As for efficacy, 90% and 40% of patients in studies 216 and 215 achieved IGA success at week 4, respectively, while 90% and 50% achieved PASI-75, 90% and 40% achieved WI-NRS success, and the mean BSA reductions at week 4 were 79.1% and 44.4%. Meanwhile, one younger patient in study 216 reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of headache, which was considered mild, while four older patients in study 215 reported 8 TEAEs, which were considered mild and ranged from back pain to nasal congestion.

“The rapid onset of action was surprising but exceedingly rewarding for the subjects enrolled in the study,” Dr. Hebert told this news organization after the meeting. “The PASI scores and itch scores were markedly improved at the end of the 4-week clinical trial. Patient and parents alike were pleased to use a steroid-free option with once-daily application and rapid onset of action to help control plaque psoriasis.”

In the poster abstract, she and her coauthors concluded that “under maximal use conditions in children aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream 0.3% was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis with measured improvements in IGA score, PASI score, BSA involvement, CDLQI, and WI-NRS. Overall, pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and efficacy in patients aged 2-11 years were consistent with prior results in adults and adolescents.”

The study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Hebert reported that she is an investigator for Arcutis. About half the coauthors are employees of Arcutis, and the other half disclosed grants, research funding and/or honoraria from the company. Research grants from the company for this study were paid to the McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas.

In patients aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis over 4 weeks, according to results from a pair of phase two studies.

“Limited topical treatments are approved for children younger than 12 years old with psoriasis,” researchers led by Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, wrote in their abstract. The results were presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Roflumilast cream 0.3% (Zoryve) is a once-daily, topical nonsteroidal treatment from Arcutis Biotherapeutics. A phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2022 for mild, moderate and severe psoriasis in individuals aged 12 and older, including intertriginous psoriasis.

For the analysis, Dr. Hebert, chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, and colleagues conducted two 4-week, phase 2, open-label safety studies of roflumilast cream 0.3%.

One, study 216, enrolled 10 children aged 2-5, and all but one were Black. The other, study 215, enrolled 20 children aged 6-11, and half were Black and nearly half were White. At baseline, patients had 2% or greater body surface area (BSA) involvement and an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of at least mild.

Caregivers applied roflumilast cream to all affected areas once daily for 28 days. The researchers collected pharmacokinetic samples at week 2 and week 4. The primary endpoints were pharmacokinetic, safety, and tolerability.

Efficacy was evaluated as exploratory endpoints: An IGA of clear or almost clear plus a 2-grade or more improvement from baseline, a 50% or greater improvement and a 75% or greater improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-50 and PASI-75), a 4-point or greater reduction in the Worst Itch–Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) in patients with a baseline score of 4 or greater, a mean change from baseline in BSA, and improvement in the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI).

At baseline, the mean BSA was similar for patients enrolled in studies 216 and 215 (9.6% and 8.8%, respectively), and 80% of all patients had baseline IGA of moderate. By week 2, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose plasma concentrations among patients in the younger group were 2.15 and 22.4 ng/mL, compared with 3.15 and 28.9 ng/mL among those in the older group. At week 4, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose concentrations were 2.04 and 15.8 ng/mL in the younger group (study 216), compared with 1.68 and 15.7 ng/mL in the older group (study 215).

As for efficacy, 90% and 40% of patients in studies 216 and 215 achieved IGA success at week 4, respectively, while 90% and 50% achieved PASI-75, 90% and 40% achieved WI-NRS success, and the mean BSA reductions at week 4 were 79.1% and 44.4%. Meanwhile, one younger patient in study 216 reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of headache, which was considered mild, while four older patients in study 215 reported 8 TEAEs, which were considered mild and ranged from back pain to nasal congestion.

“The rapid onset of action was surprising but exceedingly rewarding for the subjects enrolled in the study,” Dr. Hebert told this news organization after the meeting. “The PASI scores and itch scores were markedly improved at the end of the 4-week clinical trial. Patient and parents alike were pleased to use a steroid-free option with once-daily application and rapid onset of action to help control plaque psoriasis.”

In the poster abstract, she and her coauthors concluded that “under maximal use conditions in children aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream 0.3% was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis with measured improvements in IGA score, PASI score, BSA involvement, CDLQI, and WI-NRS. Overall, pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and efficacy in patients aged 2-11 years were consistent with prior results in adults and adolescents.”

The study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Hebert reported that she is an investigator for Arcutis. About half the coauthors are employees of Arcutis, and the other half disclosed grants, research funding and/or honoraria from the company. Research grants from the company for this study were paid to the McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas.

In patients aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis over 4 weeks, according to results from a pair of phase two studies.

“Limited topical treatments are approved for children younger than 12 years old with psoriasis,” researchers led by Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, wrote in their abstract. The results were presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Roflumilast cream 0.3% (Zoryve) is a once-daily, topical nonsteroidal treatment from Arcutis Biotherapeutics. A phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2022 for mild, moderate and severe psoriasis in individuals aged 12 and older, including intertriginous psoriasis.

For the analysis, Dr. Hebert, chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, and colleagues conducted two 4-week, phase 2, open-label safety studies of roflumilast cream 0.3%.

One, study 216, enrolled 10 children aged 2-5, and all but one were Black. The other, study 215, enrolled 20 children aged 6-11, and half were Black and nearly half were White. At baseline, patients had 2% or greater body surface area (BSA) involvement and an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of at least mild.

Caregivers applied roflumilast cream to all affected areas once daily for 28 days. The researchers collected pharmacokinetic samples at week 2 and week 4. The primary endpoints were pharmacokinetic, safety, and tolerability.

Efficacy was evaluated as exploratory endpoints: An IGA of clear or almost clear plus a 2-grade or more improvement from baseline, a 50% or greater improvement and a 75% or greater improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-50 and PASI-75), a 4-point or greater reduction in the Worst Itch–Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) in patients with a baseline score of 4 or greater, a mean change from baseline in BSA, and improvement in the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI).

At baseline, the mean BSA was similar for patients enrolled in studies 216 and 215 (9.6% and 8.8%, respectively), and 80% of all patients had baseline IGA of moderate. By week 2, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose plasma concentrations among patients in the younger group were 2.15 and 22.4 ng/mL, compared with 3.15 and 28.9 ng/mL among those in the older group. At week 4, the mean roflumilast and N-oxide predose concentrations were 2.04 and 15.8 ng/mL in the younger group (study 216), compared with 1.68 and 15.7 ng/mL in the older group (study 215).

As for efficacy, 90% and 40% of patients in studies 216 and 215 achieved IGA success at week 4, respectively, while 90% and 50% achieved PASI-75, 90% and 40% achieved WI-NRS success, and the mean BSA reductions at week 4 were 79.1% and 44.4%. Meanwhile, one younger patient in study 216 reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of headache, which was considered mild, while four older patients in study 215 reported 8 TEAEs, which were considered mild and ranged from back pain to nasal congestion.

“The rapid onset of action was surprising but exceedingly rewarding for the subjects enrolled in the study,” Dr. Hebert told this news organization after the meeting. “The PASI scores and itch scores were markedly improved at the end of the 4-week clinical trial. Patient and parents alike were pleased to use a steroid-free option with once-daily application and rapid onset of action to help control plaque psoriasis.”

In the poster abstract, she and her coauthors concluded that “under maximal use conditions in children aged 2-11 years, roflumilast cream 0.3% was well tolerated and improved signs and symptoms of psoriasis with measured improvements in IGA score, PASI score, BSA involvement, CDLQI, and WI-NRS. Overall, pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and efficacy in patients aged 2-11 years were consistent with prior results in adults and adolescents.”

The study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Hebert reported that she is an investigator for Arcutis. About half the coauthors are employees of Arcutis, and the other half disclosed grants, research funding and/or honoraria from the company. Research grants from the company for this study were paid to the McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas.

A petition demanding an end to maintenance of certification (MOC) requirements from the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) gained traction among oncologists in late July, garnering nearly 7,500 signatures in 10 days.

The MOC program, “originally intended to uphold the standards of medical practice and promote lifelong learning, has evolved into a complex and time-consuming process that poses significant challenges to practicing physicians,” according to the petition launched on July 21 by hematologist-oncologist Aaron Goodman, MD. The MOC “has become burdensome, costly, and lacks evidence to support its effectiveness in improving patient care or physician competence.”

Dr. Goodman, assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego, is scheduled to debate the matter with ABIM President and Chief Executive Officer Richard J. Baron, MD, during a Healthcare Unfiltered podcast recorded and hosted by Chadi Nabhan, MD. In the August 3 podcast, Dr. Goodman and Dr. Baron will respond to questions posed via tweets, Dr. Goodman said.

A Twitter survey posted by Dr. Nabhan in advance of the debate asked physicians whether the cost of the MOC, the time required for testing, or data sharing by ABIM is most bothersome. Of 158 respondents, 71% selected “all of the above.”
 

ABIM touts MOC ‘values’  

The ABIM requires an initial certification assessment that costs thousands of dollars and must be repeated every 10 years. The annual MOC requirements, which were tacked on within the last decade, involve tests that cost $220 for the first certificate a physician holds and about $120 for each subsequent one.

Over the course of his career, Dr. Goodman estimates he will spend over $40,000 to maintain his three ABIM boards in medicine, hematology, and oncology.

The ABIM did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the petition and debate, but a page on the ABIM website touts the “values of MOC” and says there is “compelling evidence” that the MOC improves the value of care without sacrificing quality and that board-certified physicians earn more.

According to the website, the MOC program “provides doctors with a pathway to know that they are staying current in the medical knowledge they use to treat patients and make important care decisions daily.” The ABIM also says that the “program has evolved to include new assessment options and an increased recognition of the work doctors do every day” and that the ABIM “continuously collaborates with doctors to increase the relevance of exams.”

Aniruddha Singh, MD, also weighed in on the value of MOC in a July 13 ABIM blog post. Dr. Singh is a member of this year’s Cardiovascular Disease Traditional, 10-Year MOC Exam Approval Committee and program director for the General Cardiovascular Fellowship at Drexel University College of Medicine, Reading, Pa.

In his post, Dr. Singh states that the MOC “facilitates a broader perspective on a range of topics [and] enables me to delve deeper into relevant areas, fostering a comprehensive understanding that enhances my quality of care.”
 

Growing resistance

Although Dr. Goodman acknowledged the merit of board testing every decade or so, physicians already do continuing medical education (CME) to keep up-to-date on their specialties. Dr. Goodman believes that most physicians, other than those who work for ABIM, would agree that MOC is a waste of time and money.

“It’s a pain-in-the-ass module that you sit at home and Google – it’s not really any sort of assessment,” nor does it help protect the public, said Goodman. The MOC is ultimately “just a money grab.”

According to the ABIM’s website, the nonprofit has net assets of more than $73.2 million as of June 30, 2022. Last year, the ABIM’s revenue hit $71.9 million, with more than half coming from MOC fees and 48% from certification.

The ABIM also says it spent $58 million in 2022. A breakdown shows about 63% of that money went to administering (28%), researching (13%), overseeing (4%), and developing (18%) the certification and MOC exams and program. ABIM’s CEO Dr. Baron makes about $1.2 million a year, according to recent tax filings. The COO makes about $550,000 from the ABIM and “related” organizations.

Fed up with the requirements and cost, Dr. Goodman decided to launch the petition to see if others agreed and how many.

His petition, addressed to the ABIM, expresses “deep dissatisfaction” with the ABIM MOC program and “respectfully request[s] that the ABIM take immediate action to eliminate the MOC program and adopt alternative, less burdensome methods of ensuring physician competence and continuous professional development.” Dr. Goodman, alongside Vinay Prasad, MD, a hematologist-oncologist and professor at the University of California, San Francisco, reiterated these points in a piece highlighting the petition.

Shortly before the petition went public but after he had been vocal on Twitter about issues with the MOC, Dr. Goodman said he received an invitation to join the ABIM Board of Governors. “My hypothesis is they are trying to ‘friend’ me, so I get credentialed, and they get me to stop yelling. It just made me more pissed off. I don’t want to be any part of that,” he said.

H. Jack West, MD, a thoracic oncologist and associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, signed the petition without hesitation.

Dr. West agreed with Dr. Goodman that the 10-year ABIM recertification is sufficient. He also denounced the ABIM testing process, costs, and content, saying he found the questions “so ambiguous that even knowing everything about the subject, I found the assignment of the ‘best’ answer to be a Talmudic interpretation.”

“The questions seem to have a sadistic level of complexity and ambiguity baked into them, rather than being a direct assessment of knowledge,” he explained.

The ABIM is also “completely opaque” about their process of developing questions and defining answers, Dr. West said. And “the ABIM offers no data to support that their processes improve any clinical outcomes.”

Yet, the MOC “forces physicians to spend several hundred dollars every year as well as an incredible amount of their time jumping through hoops at the behest of ABIM to satisfy these imposed requirements,” Dr. West said. The time spent satisfying these requirements is also “strip-mining physician morale” by taking time away from families and personal lives.

As for ABIM finances, Dr. West said the organization offers no justification for “the extortionate costs imposed by this de facto monopoly.”

The glimpses we do see, however, “indicate an organization spending on a lavish condominium and offering conspicuously generous remuneration to its own leadership. The only thing that is assured by the ABIM’s MOC program is that it is wildly profitable for the ABIM,” he added.

In a tweet, he called on physicians to take a stand: “If you think MOC is good, say it. Otherwise, if you don’t sign [the petition], ask yourself why you don’t have the courage & character to do so.”
 

Next steps?

Dr. Goodman’s petition lays out potential alternatives to the MOC that “would better support physician competence and continuing education without imposing unnecessary hurdles.”

Alternatives include encouraging voluntary, accessible, and evidence-based CME programs to promote lifelong learning among physicians, establishing a system for peer evaluation and feedback, encouraging self-assessment, and fostering a culture of continuous quality improvement.

Dr. Goodman’s goal is to garner at least 10,000 signatures and reach out to credentialing committees around the country with the results to promote alternatives to MOC. As of the morning of August 1, the petition had more than 7,900 signatures.

He also gives Dr. Baron credit for his willingness to have a conversation about the MOC and intends for that conversation to be a civil, respectful debate.

“I can’t think of anything he could say that will convince me [MOC] is the right thing to do, but we’ll see what he has to say,” Dr. Goodman said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A petition demanding an end to maintenance of certification (MOC) requirements from the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) gained traction among oncologists in late July, garnering nearly 7,500 signatures in 10 days.

The MOC program, “originally intended to uphold the standards of medical practice and promote lifelong learning, has evolved into a complex and time-consuming process that poses significant challenges to practicing physicians,” according to the petition launched on July 21 by hematologist-oncologist Aaron Goodman, MD. The MOC “has become burdensome, costly, and lacks evidence to support its effectiveness in improving patient care or physician competence.”

Dr. Goodman, assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego, is scheduled to debate the matter with ABIM President and Chief Executive Officer Richard J. Baron, MD, during a Healthcare Unfiltered podcast recorded and hosted by Chadi Nabhan, MD. In the August 3 podcast, Dr. Goodman and Dr. Baron will respond to questions posed via tweets, Dr. Goodman said.

A Twitter survey posted by Dr. Nabhan in advance of the debate asked physicians whether the cost of the MOC, the time required for testing, or data sharing by ABIM is most bothersome. Of 158 respondents, 71% selected “all of the above.”
 

ABIM touts MOC ‘values’  

The ABIM requires an initial certification assessment that costs thousands of dollars and must be repeated every 10 years. The annual MOC requirements, which were tacked on within the last decade, involve tests that cost $220 for the first certificate a physician holds and about $120 for each subsequent one.

Over the course of his career, Dr. Goodman estimates he will spend over $40,000 to maintain his three ABIM boards in medicine, hematology, and oncology.

The ABIM did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the petition and debate, but a page on the ABIM website touts the “values of MOC” and says there is “compelling evidence” that the MOC improves the value of care without sacrificing quality and that board-certified physicians earn more.

According to the website, the MOC program “provides doctors with a pathway to know that they are staying current in the medical knowledge they use to treat patients and make important care decisions daily.” The ABIM also says that the “program has evolved to include new assessment options and an increased recognition of the work doctors do every day” and that the ABIM “continuously collaborates with doctors to increase the relevance of exams.”

Aniruddha Singh, MD, also weighed in on the value of MOC in a July 13 ABIM blog post. Dr. Singh is a member of this year’s Cardiovascular Disease Traditional, 10-Year MOC Exam Approval Committee and program director for the General Cardiovascular Fellowship at Drexel University College of Medicine, Reading, Pa.

In his post, Dr. Singh states that the MOC “facilitates a broader perspective on a range of topics [and] enables me to delve deeper into relevant areas, fostering a comprehensive understanding that enhances my quality of care.”
 

Growing resistance

Although Dr. Goodman acknowledged the merit of board testing every decade or so, physicians already do continuing medical education (CME) to keep up-to-date on their specialties. Dr. Goodman believes that most physicians, other than those who work for ABIM, would agree that MOC is a waste of time and money.

“It’s a pain-in-the-ass module that you sit at home and Google – it’s not really any sort of assessment,” nor does it help protect the public, said Goodman. The MOC is ultimately “just a money grab.”

According to the ABIM’s website, the nonprofit has net assets of more than $73.2 million as of June 30, 2022. Last year, the ABIM’s revenue hit $71.9 million, with more than half coming from MOC fees and 48% from certification.

The ABIM also says it spent $58 million in 2022. A breakdown shows about 63% of that money went to administering (28%), researching (13%), overseeing (4%), and developing (18%) the certification and MOC exams and program. ABIM’s CEO Dr. Baron makes about $1.2 million a year, according to recent tax filings. The COO makes about $550,000 from the ABIM and “related” organizations.

Fed up with the requirements and cost, Dr. Goodman decided to launch the petition to see if others agreed and how many.

His petition, addressed to the ABIM, expresses “deep dissatisfaction” with the ABIM MOC program and “respectfully request[s] that the ABIM take immediate action to eliminate the MOC program and adopt alternative, less burdensome methods of ensuring physician competence and continuous professional development.” Dr. Goodman, alongside Vinay Prasad, MD, a hematologist-oncologist and professor at the University of California, San Francisco, reiterated these points in a piece highlighting the petition.

Shortly before the petition went public but after he had been vocal on Twitter about issues with the MOC, Dr. Goodman said he received an invitation to join the ABIM Board of Governors. “My hypothesis is they are trying to ‘friend’ me, so I get credentialed, and they get me to stop yelling. It just made me more pissed off. I don’t want to be any part of that,” he said.

H. Jack West, MD, a thoracic oncologist and associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, signed the petition without hesitation.

Dr. West agreed with Dr. Goodman that the 10-year ABIM recertification is sufficient. He also denounced the ABIM testing process, costs, and content, saying he found the questions “so ambiguous that even knowing everything about the subject, I found the assignment of the ‘best’ answer to be a Talmudic interpretation.”

“The questions seem to have a sadistic level of complexity and ambiguity baked into them, rather than being a direct assessment of knowledge,” he explained.

The ABIM is also “completely opaque” about their process of developing questions and defining answers, Dr. West said. And “the ABIM offers no data to support that their processes improve any clinical outcomes.”

Yet, the MOC “forces physicians to spend several hundred dollars every year as well as an incredible amount of their time jumping through hoops at the behest of ABIM to satisfy these imposed requirements,” Dr. West said. The time spent satisfying these requirements is also “strip-mining physician morale” by taking time away from families and personal lives.

As for ABIM finances, Dr. West said the organization offers no justification for “the extortionate costs imposed by this de facto monopoly.”

The glimpses we do see, however, “indicate an organization spending on a lavish condominium and offering conspicuously generous remuneration to its own leadership. The only thing that is assured by the ABIM’s MOC program is that it is wildly profitable for the ABIM,” he added.

In a tweet, he called on physicians to take a stand: “If you think MOC is good, say it. Otherwise, if you don’t sign [the petition], ask yourself why you don’t have the courage & character to do so.”
 

Next steps?

Dr. Goodman’s petition lays out potential alternatives to the MOC that “would better support physician competence and continuing education without imposing unnecessary hurdles.”

Alternatives include encouraging voluntary, accessible, and evidence-based CME programs to promote lifelong learning among physicians, establishing a system for peer evaluation and feedback, encouraging self-assessment, and fostering a culture of continuous quality improvement.

Dr. Goodman’s goal is to garner at least 10,000 signatures and reach out to credentialing committees around the country with the results to promote alternatives to MOC. As of the morning of August 1, the petition had more than 7,900 signatures.

He also gives Dr. Baron credit for his willingness to have a conversation about the MOC and intends for that conversation to be a civil, respectful debate.

“I can’t think of anything he could say that will convince me [MOC] is the right thing to do, but we’ll see what he has to say,” Dr. Goodman said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A petition demanding an end to maintenance of certification (MOC) requirements from the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) gained traction among oncologists in late July, garnering nearly 7,500 signatures in 10 days.

The MOC program, “originally intended to uphold the standards of medical practice and promote lifelong learning, has evolved into a complex and time-consuming process that poses significant challenges to practicing physicians,” according to the petition launched on July 21 by hematologist-oncologist Aaron Goodman, MD. The MOC “has become burdensome, costly, and lacks evidence to support its effectiveness in improving patient care or physician competence.”

Dr. Goodman, assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego, is scheduled to debate the matter with ABIM President and Chief Executive Officer Richard J. Baron, MD, during a Healthcare Unfiltered podcast recorded and hosted by Chadi Nabhan, MD. In the August 3 podcast, Dr. Goodman and Dr. Baron will respond to questions posed via tweets, Dr. Goodman said.

A Twitter survey posted by Dr. Nabhan in advance of the debate asked physicians whether the cost of the MOC, the time required for testing, or data sharing by ABIM is most bothersome. Of 158 respondents, 71% selected “all of the above.”
 

ABIM touts MOC ‘values’  

The ABIM requires an initial certification assessment that costs thousands of dollars and must be repeated every 10 years. The annual MOC requirements, which were tacked on within the last decade, involve tests that cost $220 for the first certificate a physician holds and about $120 for each subsequent one.

Over the course of his career, Dr. Goodman estimates he will spend over $40,000 to maintain his three ABIM boards in medicine, hematology, and oncology.

The ABIM did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the petition and debate, but a page on the ABIM website touts the “values of MOC” and says there is “compelling evidence” that the MOC improves the value of care without sacrificing quality and that board-certified physicians earn more.

According to the website, the MOC program “provides doctors with a pathway to know that they are staying current in the medical knowledge they use to treat patients and make important care decisions daily.” The ABIM also says that the “program has evolved to include new assessment options and an increased recognition of the work doctors do every day” and that the ABIM “continuously collaborates with doctors to increase the relevance of exams.”

Aniruddha Singh, MD, also weighed in on the value of MOC in a July 13 ABIM blog post. Dr. Singh is a member of this year’s Cardiovascular Disease Traditional, 10-Year MOC Exam Approval Committee and program director for the General Cardiovascular Fellowship at Drexel University College of Medicine, Reading, Pa.

In his post, Dr. Singh states that the MOC “facilitates a broader perspective on a range of topics [and] enables me to delve deeper into relevant areas, fostering a comprehensive understanding that enhances my quality of care.”
 

Growing resistance

Although Dr. Goodman acknowledged the merit of board testing every decade or so, physicians already do continuing medical education (CME) to keep up-to-date on their specialties. Dr. Goodman believes that most physicians, other than those who work for ABIM, would agree that MOC is a waste of time and money.

“It’s a pain-in-the-ass module that you sit at home and Google – it’s not really any sort of assessment,” nor does it help protect the public, said Goodman. The MOC is ultimately “just a money grab.”

According to the ABIM’s website, the nonprofit has net assets of more than $73.2 million as of June 30, 2022. Last year, the ABIM’s revenue hit $71.9 million, with more than half coming from MOC fees and 48% from certification.

The ABIM also says it spent $58 million in 2022. A breakdown shows about 63% of that money went to administering (28%), researching (13%), overseeing (4%), and developing (18%) the certification and MOC exams and program. ABIM’s CEO Dr. Baron makes about $1.2 million a year, according to recent tax filings. The COO makes about $550,000 from the ABIM and “related” organizations.

Fed up with the requirements and cost, Dr. Goodman decided to launch the petition to see if others agreed and how many.

His petition, addressed to the ABIM, expresses “deep dissatisfaction” with the ABIM MOC program and “respectfully request[s] that the ABIM take immediate action to eliminate the MOC program and adopt alternative, less burdensome methods of ensuring physician competence and continuous professional development.” Dr. Goodman, alongside Vinay Prasad, MD, a hematologist-oncologist and professor at the University of California, San Francisco, reiterated these points in a piece highlighting the petition.

Shortly before the petition went public but after he had been vocal on Twitter about issues with the MOC, Dr. Goodman said he received an invitation to join the ABIM Board of Governors. “My hypothesis is they are trying to ‘friend’ me, so I get credentialed, and they get me to stop yelling. It just made me more pissed off. I don’t want to be any part of that,” he said.

H. Jack West, MD, a thoracic oncologist and associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, signed the petition without hesitation.

Dr. West agreed with Dr. Goodman that the 10-year ABIM recertification is sufficient. He also denounced the ABIM testing process, costs, and content, saying he found the questions “so ambiguous that even knowing everything about the subject, I found the assignment of the ‘best’ answer to be a Talmudic interpretation.”

“The questions seem to have a sadistic level of complexity and ambiguity baked into them, rather than being a direct assessment of knowledge,” he explained.

The ABIM is also “completely opaque” about their process of developing questions and defining answers, Dr. West said. And “the ABIM offers no data to support that their processes improve any clinical outcomes.”

Yet, the MOC “forces physicians to spend several hundred dollars every year as well as an incredible amount of their time jumping through hoops at the behest of ABIM to satisfy these imposed requirements,” Dr. West said. The time spent satisfying these requirements is also “strip-mining physician morale” by taking time away from families and personal lives.

As for ABIM finances, Dr. West said the organization offers no justification for “the extortionate costs imposed by this de facto monopoly.”

The glimpses we do see, however, “indicate an organization spending on a lavish condominium and offering conspicuously generous remuneration to its own leadership. The only thing that is assured by the ABIM’s MOC program is that it is wildly profitable for the ABIM,” he added.

In a tweet, he called on physicians to take a stand: “If you think MOC is good, say it. Otherwise, if you don’t sign [the petition], ask yourself why you don’t have the courage & character to do so.”
 

Next steps?

Dr. Goodman’s petition lays out potential alternatives to the MOC that “would better support physician competence and continuing education without imposing unnecessary hurdles.”

Alternatives include encouraging voluntary, accessible, and evidence-based CME programs to promote lifelong learning among physicians, establishing a system for peer evaluation and feedback, encouraging self-assessment, and fostering a culture of continuous quality improvement.

Dr. Goodman’s goal is to garner at least 10,000 signatures and reach out to credentialing committees around the country with the results to promote alternatives to MOC. As of the morning of August 1, the petition had more than 7,900 signatures.

He also gives Dr. Baron credit for his willingness to have a conversation about the MOC and intends for that conversation to be a civil, respectful debate.

“I can’t think of anything he could say that will convince me [MOC] is the right thing to do, but we’ll see what he has to say,” Dr. Goodman said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.