Whenever Don McLean is asked what the lyrics to his iconic song “American Pie” mean, he answers: “They mean that I don’t have to work anymore.”

It would be nice if those of us who have never written an enigmatic hit tune could receive an unequivocal signal when it’s safe to retire. Unfortunately, the road to retirement is fraught with challenges, not least of which is locating the right off-ramp.

We tend to live longer than planned, so we run the risk of outliving our savings, which are often underfunded to begin with. And we don’t face facts about end-of-life care. Few of us have long-term care insurance, or the means to self-fund an extended long-term care situation, as I will discuss next month.

Many of us lack a clear idea of where our retirement income will come from, or if it will be there when we arrive. Doctors in particular are notorious for mismanaging their investments. Many try to self-manage retirement plans and personal savings without adequate time or knowledge to do it right. Involving a qualified financial professional is usually a far better strategy than going it alone.

So, assuming you have a solid savings plan, and solid help with its management – how will you know when you can safely retire? As with everything else, it depends; but to arrive at any sort of reliable ballpark figure, you’ll need to know three things: how much you realistically expect to spend annually after retirement; how much principal will throw off that amount in interest and dividends each year; and how far your present savings are from that target.

An oft-quoted rule of thumb is that, in retirement, your expenses will be about 70% of what they are now. In my opinion, that’s nonsense. While a few bills, such as disability and malpractice insurance premiums, will go away, other costs, such as recreation and medical care, will increase. I suggest assuming that your spending will not diminish significantly in retirement. Those of us who love travel or fancy toys may need even more.

Once you have an estimate of your annual retirement expenses, you’ll need to determine how much principal you’ll need – usually in fixed pensions and invested assets – to generate that income. Most financial advisors use the 5% rule: Assume your nest egg will pay you a conservative 5% of its value each year in dividends and interest. That rule has worked well, on average, over the long term. So if you estimate your postretirement spending will be around $100,000 per year (in today’s dollars), you’ll need about $2 million in assets. For $200,000 annual spending, you’ll need $4 million. (Should you factor in Social Security? Yes, if you’re 50 years or older; if you’re younger, I wouldn’t count on receiving any entitlements, and be pleasantly surprised if you do.)

How do you accumulate that kind of money? Financial experts say too many physicians invest too aggressively. For retirement, safety is the key. The most foolproof strategy – seldom employed, because it’s boring – is to sock away a fixed amount per month (after your retirement plan has been funded) in a mutual fund. $1,000 per month for 25 years with the market earning 10% (its historic long-term average) comes to almost $2 million, with the power of compounded interest working for you. And the earlier you start, the better.

It is never too soon to think about retirement. Young physicians often defer contributing to their retirement plans because they want to save for a new house or for college for their children. But there are tangible tax benefits that you get now, because your contributions usually reduce your taxable income, and your funds grow tax free until you withdraw them, presumably in a lower tax bracket.

At any age, it’s hard to motivate yourself to save, because it generally requires spending less money now. The way I do it is to pay myself first; that is, each month I make my regular savings contribution before considering any new purchases.

In the end, the strategy is very straightforward: Fill your retirement plan to its legal limit and let it grow, tax deferred. Then invest for the long term, with your target amount in mind. And once again, the earlier you start, the better.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Whenever Don McLean is asked what the lyrics to his iconic song “American Pie” mean, he answers: “They mean that I don’t have to work anymore.”

It would be nice if those of us who have never written an enigmatic hit tune could receive an unequivocal signal when it’s safe to retire. Unfortunately, the road to retirement is fraught with challenges, not least of which is locating the right off-ramp.

We tend to live longer than planned, so we run the risk of outliving our savings, which are often underfunded to begin with. And we don’t face facts about end-of-life care. Few of us have long-term care insurance, or the means to self-fund an extended long-term care situation, as I will discuss next month.

Many of us lack a clear idea of where our retirement income will come from, or if it will be there when we arrive. Doctors in particular are notorious for mismanaging their investments. Many try to self-manage retirement plans and personal savings without adequate time or knowledge to do it right. Involving a qualified financial professional is usually a far better strategy than going it alone.

So, assuming you have a solid savings plan, and solid help with its management – how will you know when you can safely retire? As with everything else, it depends; but to arrive at any sort of reliable ballpark figure, you’ll need to know three things: how much you realistically expect to spend annually after retirement; how much principal will throw off that amount in interest and dividends each year; and how far your present savings are from that target.

An oft-quoted rule of thumb is that, in retirement, your expenses will be about 70% of what they are now. In my opinion, that’s nonsense. While a few bills, such as disability and malpractice insurance premiums, will go away, other costs, such as recreation and medical care, will increase. I suggest assuming that your spending will not diminish significantly in retirement. Those of us who love travel or fancy toys may need even more.

Once you have an estimate of your annual retirement expenses, you’ll need to determine how much principal you’ll need – usually in fixed pensions and invested assets – to generate that income. Most financial advisors use the 5% rule: Assume your nest egg will pay you a conservative 5% of its value each year in dividends and interest. That rule has worked well, on average, over the long term. So if you estimate your postretirement spending will be around $100,000 per year (in today’s dollars), you’ll need about $2 million in assets. For $200,000 annual spending, you’ll need $4 million. (Should you factor in Social Security? Yes, if you’re 50 years or older; if you’re younger, I wouldn’t count on receiving any entitlements, and be pleasantly surprised if you do.)

How do you accumulate that kind of money? Financial experts say too many physicians invest too aggressively. For retirement, safety is the key. The most foolproof strategy – seldom employed, because it’s boring – is to sock away a fixed amount per month (after your retirement plan has been funded) in a mutual fund. $1,000 per month for 25 years with the market earning 10% (its historic long-term average) comes to almost $2 million, with the power of compounded interest working for you. And the earlier you start, the better.

It is never too soon to think about retirement. Young physicians often defer contributing to their retirement plans because they want to save for a new house or for college for their children. But there are tangible tax benefits that you get now, because your contributions usually reduce your taxable income, and your funds grow tax free until you withdraw them, presumably in a lower tax bracket.

At any age, it’s hard to motivate yourself to save, because it generally requires spending less money now. The way I do it is to pay myself first; that is, each month I make my regular savings contribution before considering any new purchases.

In the end, the strategy is very straightforward: Fill your retirement plan to its legal limit and let it grow, tax deferred. Then invest for the long term, with your target amount in mind. And once again, the earlier you start, the better.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Whenever Don McLean is asked what the lyrics to his iconic song “American Pie” mean, he answers: “They mean that I don’t have to work anymore.”

It would be nice if those of us who have never written an enigmatic hit tune could receive an unequivocal signal when it’s safe to retire. Unfortunately, the road to retirement is fraught with challenges, not least of which is locating the right off-ramp.

We tend to live longer than planned, so we run the risk of outliving our savings, which are often underfunded to begin with. And we don’t face facts about end-of-life care. Few of us have long-term care insurance, or the means to self-fund an extended long-term care situation, as I will discuss next month.

Many of us lack a clear idea of where our retirement income will come from, or if it will be there when we arrive. Doctors in particular are notorious for mismanaging their investments. Many try to self-manage retirement plans and personal savings without adequate time or knowledge to do it right. Involving a qualified financial professional is usually a far better strategy than going it alone.

So, assuming you have a solid savings plan, and solid help with its management – how will you know when you can safely retire? As with everything else, it depends; but to arrive at any sort of reliable ballpark figure, you’ll need to know three things: how much you realistically expect to spend annually after retirement; how much principal will throw off that amount in interest and dividends each year; and how far your present savings are from that target.

An oft-quoted rule of thumb is that, in retirement, your expenses will be about 70% of what they are now. In my opinion, that’s nonsense. While a few bills, such as disability and malpractice insurance premiums, will go away, other costs, such as recreation and medical care, will increase. I suggest assuming that your spending will not diminish significantly in retirement. Those of us who love travel or fancy toys may need even more.

Once you have an estimate of your annual retirement expenses, you’ll need to determine how much principal you’ll need – usually in fixed pensions and invested assets – to generate that income. Most financial advisors use the 5% rule: Assume your nest egg will pay you a conservative 5% of its value each year in dividends and interest. That rule has worked well, on average, over the long term. So if you estimate your postretirement spending will be around $100,000 per year (in today’s dollars), you’ll need about $2 million in assets. For $200,000 annual spending, you’ll need $4 million. (Should you factor in Social Security? Yes, if you’re 50 years or older; if you’re younger, I wouldn’t count on receiving any entitlements, and be pleasantly surprised if you do.)

How do you accumulate that kind of money? Financial experts say too many physicians invest too aggressively. For retirement, safety is the key. The most foolproof strategy – seldom employed, because it’s boring – is to sock away a fixed amount per month (after your retirement plan has been funded) in a mutual fund. $1,000 per month for 25 years with the market earning 10% (its historic long-term average) comes to almost $2 million, with the power of compounded interest working for you. And the earlier you start, the better.

It is never too soon to think about retirement. Young physicians often defer contributing to their retirement plans because they want to save for a new house or for college for their children. But there are tangible tax benefits that you get now, because your contributions usually reduce your taxable income, and your funds grow tax free until you withdraw them, presumably in a lower tax bracket.

At any age, it’s hard to motivate yourself to save, because it generally requires spending less money now. The way I do it is to pay myself first; that is, each month I make my regular savings contribution before considering any new purchases.

In the end, the strategy is very straightforward: Fill your retirement plan to its legal limit and let it grow, tax deferred. Then invest for the long term, with your target amount in mind. And once again, the earlier you start, the better.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Key clinical point: Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients who are heavy users of cannabis gain significantly improved cognitive function with a month of abstinence – but do they care?

Major finding: Twenty-eight days of abstinence from cannabis by MS patients who were heavy users resulted in significant improvements in cognition.

Study details: This was a randomized trial involving 40 MS patients who were long-term frequent users of cannabis for symptom relief.

Disclosures: Cecilia Meza, who presented the results, reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada.

Citation: Meza C. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P542.

Key clinical point: Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients who are heavy users of cannabis gain significantly improved cognitive function with a month of abstinence – but do they care?

Major finding: Twenty-eight days of abstinence from cannabis by MS patients who were heavy users resulted in significant improvements in cognition.

Study details: This was a randomized trial involving 40 MS patients who were long-term frequent users of cannabis for symptom relief.

Disclosures: Cecilia Meza, who presented the results, reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada.

Citation: Meza C. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P542.

Key clinical point: Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients who are heavy users of cannabis gain significantly improved cognitive function with a month of abstinence – but do they care?

Major finding: Twenty-eight days of abstinence from cannabis by MS patients who were heavy users resulted in significant improvements in cognition.

Study details: This was a randomized trial involving 40 MS patients who were long-term frequent users of cannabis for symptom relief.

Disclosures: Cecilia Meza, who presented the results, reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada.

Citation: Meza C. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P542.

Key clinical point: Baseline levels of the neuropeptide neurofilament light (NfL) correlated with changes in brain volume at the 5- and 10-year marks in patients with multiple sclerosis.

Major finding: At 10 years, the correlation coefficient between baseline NfL and brain volume loss was –0.395 (P = 0.42).

Study details: Prospective cohort study that obtained baseline cerebrospinal fluid NfL levels and sequential brain MRIs in 44 patients with multiple sclerosis.

Disclosures: Dr. Bhan reported receiving research funding from Novartis Norway; two coauthors reported financial relationships with several pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: Bhan A et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P592.

Key clinical point: Baseline levels of the neuropeptide neurofilament light (NfL) correlated with changes in brain volume at the 5- and 10-year marks in patients with multiple sclerosis.

Major finding: At 10 years, the correlation coefficient between baseline NfL and brain volume loss was –0.395 (P = 0.42).

Study details: Prospective cohort study that obtained baseline cerebrospinal fluid NfL levels and sequential brain MRIs in 44 patients with multiple sclerosis.

Disclosures: Dr. Bhan reported receiving research funding from Novartis Norway; two coauthors reported financial relationships with several pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: Bhan A et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P592.

Key clinical point: Baseline levels of the neuropeptide neurofilament light (NfL) correlated with changes in brain volume at the 5- and 10-year marks in patients with multiple sclerosis.

Major finding: At 10 years, the correlation coefficient between baseline NfL and brain volume loss was –0.395 (P = 0.42).

Study details: Prospective cohort study that obtained baseline cerebrospinal fluid NfL levels and sequential brain MRIs in 44 patients with multiple sclerosis.

Disclosures: Dr. Bhan reported receiving research funding from Novartis Norway; two coauthors reported financial relationships with several pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: Bhan A et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P592.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved lasmiditan (Reyvow) for acute treatment of migraines with and without auras in adults.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The agency’s Oct. 11 announcement said the approval is based on results from a pair of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that included 3,177 adult patients with a history of migraine with and without aura. The percentage of patients whose pain and most bothersome migraine symptom (nausea, light sensitivity, or sound sensitivity) resolved after 2 hours was higher in patients receiving lasmiditan than in patients receiving placebo.

Lasmiditan is a serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine_1F–receptor agonist, giving it a unique mechanism of action as compared with other migraine treatments.

The most common adverse events associated with lasmiditan include dizziness, fatigue, paresthesia, and sedation. There is a risk of driving impairment while taking the medication, and patients are advised not to operate or drive machinery for 8 hours after taking lasmiditan.

“Reyvow is a new option for the acute treatment of migraine, a painful condition that affects one in seven Americans. We know that the migraine community is keenly interested in additional treatment options, and we remain committed to continuing to work with stakeholders to promote the development of new therapies for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine,” said Nick Kozauer, MD, acting deputy director of the division of neurology products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Eli Lilly, the drug’s manufacturer, said in a news release that “the recommended controlled substance classification for Reyvow is currently under review by the Drug Enforcement Administration and is expected within 90 days of today’s FDA approval, after which Reyvow will be available to patients in retail pharmacies” in oral doses of 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved lasmiditan (Reyvow) for acute treatment of migraines with and without auras in adults.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The agency’s Oct. 11 announcement said the approval is based on results from a pair of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that included 3,177 adult patients with a history of migraine with and without aura. The percentage of patients whose pain and most bothersome migraine symptom (nausea, light sensitivity, or sound sensitivity) resolved after 2 hours was higher in patients receiving lasmiditan than in patients receiving placebo.

Lasmiditan is a serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine_1F–receptor agonist, giving it a unique mechanism of action as compared with other migraine treatments.

The most common adverse events associated with lasmiditan include dizziness, fatigue, paresthesia, and sedation. There is a risk of driving impairment while taking the medication, and patients are advised not to operate or drive machinery for 8 hours after taking lasmiditan.

“Reyvow is a new option for the acute treatment of migraine, a painful condition that affects one in seven Americans. We know that the migraine community is keenly interested in additional treatment options, and we remain committed to continuing to work with stakeholders to promote the development of new therapies for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine,” said Nick Kozauer, MD, acting deputy director of the division of neurology products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Eli Lilly, the drug’s manufacturer, said in a news release that “the recommended controlled substance classification for Reyvow is currently under review by the Drug Enforcement Administration and is expected within 90 days of today’s FDA approval, after which Reyvow will be available to patients in retail pharmacies” in oral doses of 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved lasmiditan (Reyvow) for acute treatment of migraines with and without auras in adults.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The agency’s Oct. 11 announcement said the approval is based on results from a pair of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that included 3,177 adult patients with a history of migraine with and without aura. The percentage of patients whose pain and most bothersome migraine symptom (nausea, light sensitivity, or sound sensitivity) resolved after 2 hours was higher in patients receiving lasmiditan than in patients receiving placebo.

Lasmiditan is a serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine_1F–receptor agonist, giving it a unique mechanism of action as compared with other migraine treatments.

The most common adverse events associated with lasmiditan include dizziness, fatigue, paresthesia, and sedation. There is a risk of driving impairment while taking the medication, and patients are advised not to operate or drive machinery for 8 hours after taking lasmiditan.

“Reyvow is a new option for the acute treatment of migraine, a painful condition that affects one in seven Americans. We know that the migraine community is keenly interested in additional treatment options, and we remain committed to continuing to work with stakeholders to promote the development of new therapies for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine,” said Nick Kozauer, MD, acting deputy director of the division of neurology products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Eli Lilly, the drug’s manufacturer, said in a news release that “the recommended controlled substance classification for Reyvow is currently under review by the Drug Enforcement Administration and is expected within 90 days of today’s FDA approval, after which Reyvow will be available to patients in retail pharmacies” in oral doses of 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg.

lfranki@mdedge.com

Autumn is a busy time for pediatric hospitalists, with this autumn being particularly eventful as the first American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) certifying exam for Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) will be offered on Nov. 12, 2019.

More than 1,600 med/peds and pediatric hospitalists applied to be eligible for the 2019 exam, 71% of whom were women. At least 3.9% of those applicants were denied eligibility for the 2019 exam.¹ These denials resulted in discussions on the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine (AAP SOHM) email listserv related to unintentional gender bias.

PHM was first recognized as a subspecialty by the American Board of Medical Specialties in December 2015.² Since that time, the ABP’s PHM sub-board developed eligibility criteria for practicing pediatric and med/peds hospitalists to apply for the exam. The sub-board identified three paths: a training pathway for applicants who had completed a 2-year PHM fellowship, a practice pathway for those satisfying ABP criteria for clinical activity in PHM, and a combined pathway for applicants who had completed PHM fellowships lasting less than 2 years.

Based on these pathways, 1,627 applicants applied for eligibility for the first PHM board certification exam.¹ However, many concerns arose with the practice pathway eligibility criteria.

The PHM practice pathway initially included the following eligibility criteria:

• General pediatrics board certification.

• PHM practice “look back” period ends on or before June 30 of the exam year and starts 4 years earlier.

• More than 0.5 FTE professional PHM-related activities (patient-care, research, administration), defined as more than 900 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• More than 0.25 FTE direct patient care of hospitalized children, defined as more than 450 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Practice covers the full range of hospitalized children with regard to age, diagnoses, and complexity.

• Practice interruptions cannot exceed 3 months in the preceding 4 years, or 6 months in the preceding 5 years.

• Practice experience and hours were acquired in the United States and Canada.^1,3

The start date and practice interruptions criteria in the practice pathway posed hurdles for many female applicants. Many women voiced concerns about feeling disadvantaged when applying for the PHM certifying exam and some of these women shared their concerns on the AAP SOHM email listserv. In response to these concerns, the PHM community called for increased transparency from the ABP related to denials, specifically related to unintentional gender bias against women applying for the exam.

David Skey, MD, and Jamee Walters, MD, pediatric hospitalists at Arnold Palmer Medical Center in Orlando, heard these concerns and decided to draft a petition with the help of legal counsel. The petition “demand[ed] immediate action,” and “request[ed] a formal response from the ABP regarding the practice pathway criteria.” The petition also stated that there was insufficient data to determine if the practice pathway “disadvantages women.” The petition asked the ABP to “facilitate a timely analysis to determine if gender bias” was present, or to perform an internal analysis and “release the findings publicly.”⁴

The petition was shared with the PHM community via the AAP SOHM listserv on July 29, 2019. Dr. Walters stated she was pleased by the response she and Dr. Skey received from the PHM community, on and off the AAP SOHM listserv. The petition was submitted to the ABP on Aug. 6, 2019, with 1,479 signatures.

On Aug. 29, 2019, the ABP’s response was shared on the AAP SOHM email listserv¹ and was later published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine as a Special Announcement.⁵ In its response, the ABP stated that the gender bias allegation was “not supported by the facts” as there was “no significant difference between the percentage of women and men who were denied” eligibility.”⁵ In addressing the gender bias allegations and clarifying the practice pathway eligibility, the ABP removed the practice interruption criteria and modified the practice pathway criteria as follows:

• General pediatrics board certification.

• PHM practice started on or before July 2015 (for board eligibility in 2019).

• Professional PHM-related activities (patient-care, research, administration), defined as more than 900-1000 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Direct patient care of hospitalized children, defined as more than 450-500 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Practice covers the full range of hospitalized children with regard to age, diagnoses, and complexity.

• Practice experience and hours were acquired in the United States and Canada.¹

Following the release of the ABP’s response, many members of the PHM community remain concerned about the ABP’s revised criteria. Arti Desai, MD, pediatric hospitalist at Seattle Children’s and senior author on a “Perspectives in Hospital Medicine” in the Journal of Hospital Medicine,⁶ was appreciative that the ABP chose to remove the practice interruptions criterion. However, she and her colleagues remain concerned about lingering gender bias in the ABP’s practice pathway eligibility criteria surrounding the “start date” criterion. The authors state that this criterion differentially affects women, as women may take time off during or after residency for maternity or family leave. Dr. Desai states that this criterion alone can affect a woman’s chance for being eligible for the practice pathway.

Other members of the PHM community also expressed concerns about the ABP’s response to the PHM petition. Beth C. Natt, MD, pediatric hospitalist and director of pediatric hospital medicine regional programs at Connecticut Children’s in Hartford, felt that the population may have been self-selected, as the ABP’s data were limited to individuals who applied for exam eligibility. She was concerned that the data excluded pediatric hospitalists who chose not to apply because of uncertainty about meeting eligibility criteria. Klint Schwenk, MD, pediatric hospitalist at Norton Children’s Hospital in Louisville, Ky., stated that he wished the ABP had addressed the number of pediatric hospitalists who elected not to apply based on fear of ineligibility before concluding that there was no bias. He likened the ABP’s response to that of study authors omitting selection bias when discussing the limitations of their study.

Courtney Edgar-Zarate, MD, med/peds hospitalist and associate program director of the internal medicine/pediatrics residency at the University of Arkansas, expressed concerns that the ABP’s stringent clinical patient care hours criterion may unintentionally result in ineligibility for many mid-career or senior med/peds hospitalists. Dr. Edgar-Zarate also voiced concerns that graduating med/peds residents were electing not to pursue careers in hospital medicine because they would be required to complete a PHM fellowship to become a pediatric hospitalist, when a similar fellowship is not required to practice adult hospital medicine.

The Society of Hospital Medicine shared its position in regard to the ABP’s response in a Special Announcement in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.⁷ In it, SHM’s pediatric leaders recognized physicians for the excellent care they provide to hospitalized children. They stated that SHM would continue to support all hospitalists, independent of board eligibility status, and would continue to offer these hospitalists the merit-based Fellow designation. SHM’s pediatric leaders also proposed future directions for the ABP, including a Focused Practice Pathway in Hospital Medicine (FPHM), such as what the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Family Medicine have adopted for board recertification in internal medicine and family medicine. This maintenance of certification program that allows physicians primarily practicing in inpatient settings to focus their continuing education on inpatient practice, and is not a subspecialty.⁷

Dr. Edgar-Zarate fully supports the future directions for pediatric hospitalists outlined in SHM’s Special Announcement. She hopes that the ABP will support the FPHM. She feels the FPHM will encourage more med/peds physicians to practice med/peds hospital medicine. L. Nell Hodo, MD, a family medicine–trained pediatric hospitalist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, joins Dr. Edgar-Zarate in supporting an FPHM for PHM, and feels that it will open the door for hospitalists who are ineligible for the practice pathway to be able to focus their recertification on the inpatient setting.

Dr. Hodo and Dr. Desai hope that rather than excluding those who are not PHM board eligible/certified, institutions and professional organizations will consider all qualifications when hiring, mentoring, and promoting physicians who care for hospitalized children. Dr. Natt, Dr. Schwenk, Dr. Edgar-Zarate, and Dr. Hodo appreciate that SHM is leading the way, and will continue to allow all hospitalists who care for children to receive Fellow designation.
 

Dr. Kumar is clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.

References

1. The American Board of Pediatrics. The American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. https://www.abp.org/sites/abp/files/phm-petition-response.pdf. Published 2019.

2. Barrett DJ, McGuinness GA, Cunha CA, et al. Pediatric hospital medicine: A proposed new subspecialty. Pediatrics. 2017;139(3). doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1823.

3. The American Board of Pediatrics. Pediatric Hospital Medicine Certification. https://www.abp.org/content/pediatric-hospital-medicine-certification. Published 2019.

4. Skey D. Pediatric Hospitalists, It’s time to take a stand on the PHM Boards Application Process! Five Dog Development, LLC.

5. Nichols DG, Woods SZ. The American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):586-8. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3322.

6. Gold JM et al. Collective action and effective dialogue to address gender bias in medicine. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):630-2. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3331.

7. Chang WW et al. Society of Hospital Medicine position on the American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):589-90. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3326.

Autumn is a busy time for pediatric hospitalists, with this autumn being particularly eventful as the first American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) certifying exam for Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) will be offered on Nov. 12, 2019.

More than 1,600 med/peds and pediatric hospitalists applied to be eligible for the 2019 exam, 71% of whom were women. At least 3.9% of those applicants were denied eligibility for the 2019 exam.¹ These denials resulted in discussions on the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine (AAP SOHM) email listserv related to unintentional gender bias.

PHM was first recognized as a subspecialty by the American Board of Medical Specialties in December 2015.² Since that time, the ABP’s PHM sub-board developed eligibility criteria for practicing pediatric and med/peds hospitalists to apply for the exam. The sub-board identified three paths: a training pathway for applicants who had completed a 2-year PHM fellowship, a practice pathway for those satisfying ABP criteria for clinical activity in PHM, and a combined pathway for applicants who had completed PHM fellowships lasting less than 2 years.

Based on these pathways, 1,627 applicants applied for eligibility for the first PHM board certification exam.¹ However, many concerns arose with the practice pathway eligibility criteria.

The PHM practice pathway initially included the following eligibility criteria:

• General pediatrics board certification.

• PHM practice “look back” period ends on or before June 30 of the exam year and starts 4 years earlier.

• More than 0.5 FTE professional PHM-related activities (patient-care, research, administration), defined as more than 900 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• More than 0.25 FTE direct patient care of hospitalized children, defined as more than 450 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Practice covers the full range of hospitalized children with regard to age, diagnoses, and complexity.

• Practice interruptions cannot exceed 3 months in the preceding 4 years, or 6 months in the preceding 5 years.

• Practice experience and hours were acquired in the United States and Canada.^1,3

The start date and practice interruptions criteria in the practice pathway posed hurdles for many female applicants. Many women voiced concerns about feeling disadvantaged when applying for the PHM certifying exam and some of these women shared their concerns on the AAP SOHM email listserv. In response to these concerns, the PHM community called for increased transparency from the ABP related to denials, specifically related to unintentional gender bias against women applying for the exam.

David Skey, MD, and Jamee Walters, MD, pediatric hospitalists at Arnold Palmer Medical Center in Orlando, heard these concerns and decided to draft a petition with the help of legal counsel. The petition “demand[ed] immediate action,” and “request[ed] a formal response from the ABP regarding the practice pathway criteria.” The petition also stated that there was insufficient data to determine if the practice pathway “disadvantages women.” The petition asked the ABP to “facilitate a timely analysis to determine if gender bias” was present, or to perform an internal analysis and “release the findings publicly.”⁴

The petition was shared with the PHM community via the AAP SOHM listserv on July 29, 2019. Dr. Walters stated she was pleased by the response she and Dr. Skey received from the PHM community, on and off the AAP SOHM listserv. The petition was submitted to the ABP on Aug. 6, 2019, with 1,479 signatures.

On Aug. 29, 2019, the ABP’s response was shared on the AAP SOHM email listserv¹ and was later published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine as a Special Announcement.⁵ In its response, the ABP stated that the gender bias allegation was “not supported by the facts” as there was “no significant difference between the percentage of women and men who were denied” eligibility.”⁵ In addressing the gender bias allegations and clarifying the practice pathway eligibility, the ABP removed the practice interruption criteria and modified the practice pathway criteria as follows:

• General pediatrics board certification.

• PHM practice started on or before July 2015 (for board eligibility in 2019).

• Professional PHM-related activities (patient-care, research, administration), defined as more than 900-1000 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Direct patient care of hospitalized children, defined as more than 450-500 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Practice covers the full range of hospitalized children with regard to age, diagnoses, and complexity.

• Practice experience and hours were acquired in the United States and Canada.¹

Following the release of the ABP’s response, many members of the PHM community remain concerned about the ABP’s revised criteria. Arti Desai, MD, pediatric hospitalist at Seattle Children’s and senior author on a “Perspectives in Hospital Medicine” in the Journal of Hospital Medicine,⁶ was appreciative that the ABP chose to remove the practice interruptions criterion. However, she and her colleagues remain concerned about lingering gender bias in the ABP’s practice pathway eligibility criteria surrounding the “start date” criterion. The authors state that this criterion differentially affects women, as women may take time off during or after residency for maternity or family leave. Dr. Desai states that this criterion alone can affect a woman’s chance for being eligible for the practice pathway.

Other members of the PHM community also expressed concerns about the ABP’s response to the PHM petition. Beth C. Natt, MD, pediatric hospitalist and director of pediatric hospital medicine regional programs at Connecticut Children’s in Hartford, felt that the population may have been self-selected, as the ABP’s data were limited to individuals who applied for exam eligibility. She was concerned that the data excluded pediatric hospitalists who chose not to apply because of uncertainty about meeting eligibility criteria. Klint Schwenk, MD, pediatric hospitalist at Norton Children’s Hospital in Louisville, Ky., stated that he wished the ABP had addressed the number of pediatric hospitalists who elected not to apply based on fear of ineligibility before concluding that there was no bias. He likened the ABP’s response to that of study authors omitting selection bias when discussing the limitations of their study.

Courtney Edgar-Zarate, MD, med/peds hospitalist and associate program director of the internal medicine/pediatrics residency at the University of Arkansas, expressed concerns that the ABP’s stringent clinical patient care hours criterion may unintentionally result in ineligibility for many mid-career or senior med/peds hospitalists. Dr. Edgar-Zarate also voiced concerns that graduating med/peds residents were electing not to pursue careers in hospital medicine because they would be required to complete a PHM fellowship to become a pediatric hospitalist, when a similar fellowship is not required to practice adult hospital medicine.

The Society of Hospital Medicine shared its position in regard to the ABP’s response in a Special Announcement in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.⁷ In it, SHM’s pediatric leaders recognized physicians for the excellent care they provide to hospitalized children. They stated that SHM would continue to support all hospitalists, independent of board eligibility status, and would continue to offer these hospitalists the merit-based Fellow designation. SHM’s pediatric leaders also proposed future directions for the ABP, including a Focused Practice Pathway in Hospital Medicine (FPHM), such as what the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Family Medicine have adopted for board recertification in internal medicine and family medicine. This maintenance of certification program that allows physicians primarily practicing in inpatient settings to focus their continuing education on inpatient practice, and is not a subspecialty.⁷

Dr. Edgar-Zarate fully supports the future directions for pediatric hospitalists outlined in SHM’s Special Announcement. She hopes that the ABP will support the FPHM. She feels the FPHM will encourage more med/peds physicians to practice med/peds hospital medicine. L. Nell Hodo, MD, a family medicine–trained pediatric hospitalist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, joins Dr. Edgar-Zarate in supporting an FPHM for PHM, and feels that it will open the door for hospitalists who are ineligible for the practice pathway to be able to focus their recertification on the inpatient setting.

Dr. Hodo and Dr. Desai hope that rather than excluding those who are not PHM board eligible/certified, institutions and professional organizations will consider all qualifications when hiring, mentoring, and promoting physicians who care for hospitalized children. Dr. Natt, Dr. Schwenk, Dr. Edgar-Zarate, and Dr. Hodo appreciate that SHM is leading the way, and will continue to allow all hospitalists who care for children to receive Fellow designation.
 

Dr. Kumar is clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.

References

1. The American Board of Pediatrics. The American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. https://www.abp.org/sites/abp/files/phm-petition-response.pdf. Published 2019.

2. Barrett DJ, McGuinness GA, Cunha CA, et al. Pediatric hospital medicine: A proposed new subspecialty. Pediatrics. 2017;139(3). doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1823.

3. The American Board of Pediatrics. Pediatric Hospital Medicine Certification. https://www.abp.org/content/pediatric-hospital-medicine-certification. Published 2019.

4. Skey D. Pediatric Hospitalists, It’s time to take a stand on the PHM Boards Application Process! Five Dog Development, LLC.

5. Nichols DG, Woods SZ. The American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):586-8. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3322.

6. Gold JM et al. Collective action and effective dialogue to address gender bias in medicine. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):630-2. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3331.

7. Chang WW et al. Society of Hospital Medicine position on the American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):589-90. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3326.

Autumn is a busy time for pediatric hospitalists, with this autumn being particularly eventful as the first American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) certifying exam for Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) will be offered on Nov. 12, 2019.

More than 1,600 med/peds and pediatric hospitalists applied to be eligible for the 2019 exam, 71% of whom were women. At least 3.9% of those applicants were denied eligibility for the 2019 exam.¹ These denials resulted in discussions on the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine (AAP SOHM) email listserv related to unintentional gender bias.

PHM was first recognized as a subspecialty by the American Board of Medical Specialties in December 2015.² Since that time, the ABP’s PHM sub-board developed eligibility criteria for practicing pediatric and med/peds hospitalists to apply for the exam. The sub-board identified three paths: a training pathway for applicants who had completed a 2-year PHM fellowship, a practice pathway for those satisfying ABP criteria for clinical activity in PHM, and a combined pathway for applicants who had completed PHM fellowships lasting less than 2 years.

Based on these pathways, 1,627 applicants applied for eligibility for the first PHM board certification exam.¹ However, many concerns arose with the practice pathway eligibility criteria.

The PHM practice pathway initially included the following eligibility criteria:

• General pediatrics board certification.

• PHM practice “look back” period ends on or before June 30 of the exam year and starts 4 years earlier.

• More than 0.5 FTE professional PHM-related activities (patient-care, research, administration), defined as more than 900 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• More than 0.25 FTE direct patient care of hospitalized children, defined as more than 450 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Practice covers the full range of hospitalized children with regard to age, diagnoses, and complexity.

• Practice interruptions cannot exceed 3 months in the preceding 4 years, or 6 months in the preceding 5 years.

• Practice experience and hours were acquired in the United States and Canada.^1,3

The start date and practice interruptions criteria in the practice pathway posed hurdles for many female applicants. Many women voiced concerns about feeling disadvantaged when applying for the PHM certifying exam and some of these women shared their concerns on the AAP SOHM email listserv. In response to these concerns, the PHM community called for increased transparency from the ABP related to denials, specifically related to unintentional gender bias against women applying for the exam.

David Skey, MD, and Jamee Walters, MD, pediatric hospitalists at Arnold Palmer Medical Center in Orlando, heard these concerns and decided to draft a petition with the help of legal counsel. The petition “demand[ed] immediate action,” and “request[ed] a formal response from the ABP regarding the practice pathway criteria.” The petition also stated that there was insufficient data to determine if the practice pathway “disadvantages women.” The petition asked the ABP to “facilitate a timely analysis to determine if gender bias” was present, or to perform an internal analysis and “release the findings publicly.”⁴

The petition was shared with the PHM community via the AAP SOHM listserv on July 29, 2019. Dr. Walters stated she was pleased by the response she and Dr. Skey received from the PHM community, on and off the AAP SOHM listserv. The petition was submitted to the ABP on Aug. 6, 2019, with 1,479 signatures.

On Aug. 29, 2019, the ABP’s response was shared on the AAP SOHM email listserv¹ and was later published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine as a Special Announcement.⁵ In its response, the ABP stated that the gender bias allegation was “not supported by the facts” as there was “no significant difference between the percentage of women and men who were denied” eligibility.”⁵ In addressing the gender bias allegations and clarifying the practice pathway eligibility, the ABP removed the practice interruption criteria and modified the practice pathway criteria as follows:

• General pediatrics board certification.

• PHM practice started on or before July 2015 (for board eligibility in 2019).

• Professional PHM-related activities (patient-care, research, administration), defined as more than 900-1000 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Direct patient care of hospitalized children, defined as more than 450-500 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Practice covers the full range of hospitalized children with regard to age, diagnoses, and complexity.

• Practice experience and hours were acquired in the United States and Canada.¹

Following the release of the ABP’s response, many members of the PHM community remain concerned about the ABP’s revised criteria. Arti Desai, MD, pediatric hospitalist at Seattle Children’s and senior author on a “Perspectives in Hospital Medicine” in the Journal of Hospital Medicine,⁶ was appreciative that the ABP chose to remove the practice interruptions criterion. However, she and her colleagues remain concerned about lingering gender bias in the ABP’s practice pathway eligibility criteria surrounding the “start date” criterion. The authors state that this criterion differentially affects women, as women may take time off during or after residency for maternity or family leave. Dr. Desai states that this criterion alone can affect a woman’s chance for being eligible for the practice pathway.

Other members of the PHM community also expressed concerns about the ABP’s response to the PHM petition. Beth C. Natt, MD, pediatric hospitalist and director of pediatric hospital medicine regional programs at Connecticut Children’s in Hartford, felt that the population may have been self-selected, as the ABP’s data were limited to individuals who applied for exam eligibility. She was concerned that the data excluded pediatric hospitalists who chose not to apply because of uncertainty about meeting eligibility criteria. Klint Schwenk, MD, pediatric hospitalist at Norton Children’s Hospital in Louisville, Ky., stated that he wished the ABP had addressed the number of pediatric hospitalists who elected not to apply based on fear of ineligibility before concluding that there was no bias. He likened the ABP’s response to that of study authors omitting selection bias when discussing the limitations of their study.

Courtney Edgar-Zarate, MD, med/peds hospitalist and associate program director of the internal medicine/pediatrics residency at the University of Arkansas, expressed concerns that the ABP’s stringent clinical patient care hours criterion may unintentionally result in ineligibility for many mid-career or senior med/peds hospitalists. Dr. Edgar-Zarate also voiced concerns that graduating med/peds residents were electing not to pursue careers in hospital medicine because they would be required to complete a PHM fellowship to become a pediatric hospitalist, when a similar fellowship is not required to practice adult hospital medicine.

The Society of Hospital Medicine shared its position in regard to the ABP’s response in a Special Announcement in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.⁷ In it, SHM’s pediatric leaders recognized physicians for the excellent care they provide to hospitalized children. They stated that SHM would continue to support all hospitalists, independent of board eligibility status, and would continue to offer these hospitalists the merit-based Fellow designation. SHM’s pediatric leaders also proposed future directions for the ABP, including a Focused Practice Pathway in Hospital Medicine (FPHM), such as what the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Family Medicine have adopted for board recertification in internal medicine and family medicine. This maintenance of certification program that allows physicians primarily practicing in inpatient settings to focus their continuing education on inpatient practice, and is not a subspecialty.⁷

Dr. Edgar-Zarate fully supports the future directions for pediatric hospitalists outlined in SHM’s Special Announcement. She hopes that the ABP will support the FPHM. She feels the FPHM will encourage more med/peds physicians to practice med/peds hospital medicine. L. Nell Hodo, MD, a family medicine–trained pediatric hospitalist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, joins Dr. Edgar-Zarate in supporting an FPHM for PHM, and feels that it will open the door for hospitalists who are ineligible for the practice pathway to be able to focus their recertification on the inpatient setting.

Dr. Hodo and Dr. Desai hope that rather than excluding those who are not PHM board eligible/certified, institutions and professional organizations will consider all qualifications when hiring, mentoring, and promoting physicians who care for hospitalized children. Dr. Natt, Dr. Schwenk, Dr. Edgar-Zarate, and Dr. Hodo appreciate that SHM is leading the way, and will continue to allow all hospitalists who care for children to receive Fellow designation.
 

Dr. Kumar is clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.

References

1. The American Board of Pediatrics. The American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. https://www.abp.org/sites/abp/files/phm-petition-response.pdf. Published 2019.

2. Barrett DJ, McGuinness GA, Cunha CA, et al. Pediatric hospital medicine: A proposed new subspecialty. Pediatrics. 2017;139(3). doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1823.

3. The American Board of Pediatrics. Pediatric Hospital Medicine Certification. https://www.abp.org/content/pediatric-hospital-medicine-certification. Published 2019.

4. Skey D. Pediatric Hospitalists, It’s time to take a stand on the PHM Boards Application Process! Five Dog Development, LLC.

5. Nichols DG, Woods SZ. The American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):586-8. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3322.

6. Gold JM et al. Collective action and effective dialogue to address gender bias in medicine. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):630-2. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3331.

7. Chang WW et al. Society of Hospital Medicine position on the American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):589-90. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3326.

Off-label endovascular recanalization shows signs of safety and effectiveness in children with acute, large-vessel ischemic stroke, based on data from a retrospective, multicenter study of 73 patients.

Children with high scores on the Pediatric National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (PedNIHSS) or large-vessel occlusion in the anterior or posterior circulation are at increased risk for morbidity and mortality, but the safety of thrombectomy in children has not been well studied. Several randomized trials have showed its safety and efficacy in adults, wrote Peter Sporns, MD, of the Institute of Clinical Radiology at Universitätsklinikum Muenster (Germany), and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Neurology, Dr. Sporns and coauthors reviewed data from pediatric patients aged younger than 18 years who underwent endovascular recanalization between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2018, at 25 stroke centers in Europe and 2 in the United States.

The primary outcome was change in the PedNIHSS scores and the endovascular recanalization involved “a combination of techniques using distal thrombaspiration and/or clot retrievers,” the researchers wrote.

Neurologic outcomes improved from a median PedNIHSS score of 14.0 at hospital admission to 4.0 at day 7. The average time from stroke onset to hospital admission was 3 hours, and the median time from stroke onset to recanalization was 4 hours.

“The rapidity of recanalization across the large number of centers in the Save ChildS study is a commendable achievement, establishing feasibility for acute pediatric stroke treatment within the short window of time for embolectomy at centers prepared for this event,” wrote Christine Fox, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and Nomazulu Dlamini, MBBS, PhD, of the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, in an accompanying editorial.

In addition, the median modified Rankin Scale score was 1.0 at discharge and at 6 and 24 months, and the median Pediatric Stroke Outcome Measure score was 1.0 at discharge and 0.5 at 6 and 24 months.

The median age of the patients was 11 years, and approximately half were boys (51%). A total of 63 children (86%) were treated for anterior circulation occlusion, and 10 (14%) were treated for posterior circulation occlusion; (22%) received concomitant intravenous thrombolysis.

Transient vasospasm was the only observed periprocedural complication, seen in four patients, and all cases resolved without clinical sequelae. One patient with a history of a heart anomaly died of cardiac arrest after recanalization. No vascular complications were reported, and the proportion of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage events was 1.37 per 100 observations, compared with 2.79 in a meta-analysis of adult studies.

The main limitation of the study was its retrospective design, as well as the absence of a control group, the researchers noted. However, the results “may support clinicians’ practice of off-label thrombectomy in childhood stroke in the absence of high-level evidence.”

The editorial authors emphasized that safety concerns remain despite the relatively low level of complications observed in the current study. “The safety of thrombectomy in children with suspected focal cerebral arteriopathy or bilateral arteriopathies is a particular concern because of the potential to further injure an acutely inflamed or chronically diseased vessel,” they wrote.

“We should be cautious about the interpretation of long-term outcome measures in the Save ChildS study,” Dr. Fox and Dr. Dlamini added, noting that additional multicenter studies are needed “to advance our knowledge of pediatric stroke and inform best practices.”

Dr. Sporns had no financial conflicts to disclose; several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fox and Dr. Dlamini had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Sporns P et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Oct 14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.3403; Fox C, Dlamini N. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Oct 14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.3412.

Off-label endovascular recanalization shows signs of safety and effectiveness in children with acute, large-vessel ischemic stroke, based on data from a retrospective, multicenter study of 73 patients.

Children with high scores on the Pediatric National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (PedNIHSS) or large-vessel occlusion in the anterior or posterior circulation are at increased risk for morbidity and mortality, but the safety of thrombectomy in children has not been well studied. Several randomized trials have showed its safety and efficacy in adults, wrote Peter Sporns, MD, of the Institute of Clinical Radiology at Universitätsklinikum Muenster (Germany), and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Neurology, Dr. Sporns and coauthors reviewed data from pediatric patients aged younger than 18 years who underwent endovascular recanalization between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2018, at 25 stroke centers in Europe and 2 in the United States.

The primary outcome was change in the PedNIHSS scores and the endovascular recanalization involved “a combination of techniques using distal thrombaspiration and/or clot retrievers,” the researchers wrote.

Neurologic outcomes improved from a median PedNIHSS score of 14.0 at hospital admission to 4.0 at day 7. The average time from stroke onset to hospital admission was 3 hours, and the median time from stroke onset to recanalization was 4 hours.

“The rapidity of recanalization across the large number of centers in the Save ChildS study is a commendable achievement, establishing feasibility for acute pediatric stroke treatment within the short window of time for embolectomy at centers prepared for this event,” wrote Christine Fox, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and Nomazulu Dlamini, MBBS, PhD, of the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, in an accompanying editorial.

In addition, the median modified Rankin Scale score was 1.0 at discharge and at 6 and 24 months, and the median Pediatric Stroke Outcome Measure score was 1.0 at discharge and 0.5 at 6 and 24 months.

The median age of the patients was 11 years, and approximately half were boys (51%). A total of 63 children (86%) were treated for anterior circulation occlusion, and 10 (14%) were treated for posterior circulation occlusion; (22%) received concomitant intravenous thrombolysis.

Transient vasospasm was the only observed periprocedural complication, seen in four patients, and all cases resolved without clinical sequelae. One patient with a history of a heart anomaly died of cardiac arrest after recanalization. No vascular complications were reported, and the proportion of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage events was 1.37 per 100 observations, compared with 2.79 in a meta-analysis of adult studies.

The main limitation of the study was its retrospective design, as well as the absence of a control group, the researchers noted. However, the results “may support clinicians’ practice of off-label thrombectomy in childhood stroke in the absence of high-level evidence.”

The editorial authors emphasized that safety concerns remain despite the relatively low level of complications observed in the current study. “The safety of thrombectomy in children with suspected focal cerebral arteriopathy or bilateral arteriopathies is a particular concern because of the potential to further injure an acutely inflamed or chronically diseased vessel,” they wrote.

“We should be cautious about the interpretation of long-term outcome measures in the Save ChildS study,” Dr. Fox and Dr. Dlamini added, noting that additional multicenter studies are needed “to advance our knowledge of pediatric stroke and inform best practices.”

Dr. Sporns had no financial conflicts to disclose; several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fox and Dr. Dlamini had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Sporns P et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Oct 14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.3403; Fox C, Dlamini N. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Oct 14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.3412.

Off-label endovascular recanalization shows signs of safety and effectiveness in children with acute, large-vessel ischemic stroke, based on data from a retrospective, multicenter study of 73 patients.

Children with high scores on the Pediatric National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (PedNIHSS) or large-vessel occlusion in the anterior or posterior circulation are at increased risk for morbidity and mortality, but the safety of thrombectomy in children has not been well studied. Several randomized trials have showed its safety and efficacy in adults, wrote Peter Sporns, MD, of the Institute of Clinical Radiology at Universitätsklinikum Muenster (Germany), and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Neurology, Dr. Sporns and coauthors reviewed data from pediatric patients aged younger than 18 years who underwent endovascular recanalization between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2018, at 25 stroke centers in Europe and 2 in the United States.

The primary outcome was change in the PedNIHSS scores and the endovascular recanalization involved “a combination of techniques using distal thrombaspiration and/or clot retrievers,” the researchers wrote.

Neurologic outcomes improved from a median PedNIHSS score of 14.0 at hospital admission to 4.0 at day 7. The average time from stroke onset to hospital admission was 3 hours, and the median time from stroke onset to recanalization was 4 hours.

“The rapidity of recanalization across the large number of centers in the Save ChildS study is a commendable achievement, establishing feasibility for acute pediatric stroke treatment within the short window of time for embolectomy at centers prepared for this event,” wrote Christine Fox, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and Nomazulu Dlamini, MBBS, PhD, of the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, in an accompanying editorial.

In addition, the median modified Rankin Scale score was 1.0 at discharge and at 6 and 24 months, and the median Pediatric Stroke Outcome Measure score was 1.0 at discharge and 0.5 at 6 and 24 months.

The median age of the patients was 11 years, and approximately half were boys (51%). A total of 63 children (86%) were treated for anterior circulation occlusion, and 10 (14%) were treated for posterior circulation occlusion; (22%) received concomitant intravenous thrombolysis.

Transient vasospasm was the only observed periprocedural complication, seen in four patients, and all cases resolved without clinical sequelae. One patient with a history of a heart anomaly died of cardiac arrest after recanalization. No vascular complications were reported, and the proportion of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage events was 1.37 per 100 observations, compared with 2.79 in a meta-analysis of adult studies.

The main limitation of the study was its retrospective design, as well as the absence of a control group, the researchers noted. However, the results “may support clinicians’ practice of off-label thrombectomy in childhood stroke in the absence of high-level evidence.”

The editorial authors emphasized that safety concerns remain despite the relatively low level of complications observed in the current study. “The safety of thrombectomy in children with suspected focal cerebral arteriopathy or bilateral arteriopathies is a particular concern because of the potential to further injure an acutely inflamed or chronically diseased vessel,” they wrote.

“We should be cautious about the interpretation of long-term outcome measures in the Save ChildS study,” Dr. Fox and Dr. Dlamini added, noting that additional multicenter studies are needed “to advance our knowledge of pediatric stroke and inform best practices.”

Dr. Sporns had no financial conflicts to disclose; several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fox and Dr. Dlamini had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Sporns P et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Oct 14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.3403; Fox C, Dlamini N. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Oct 14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.3412.

Patients with bipolar disorder may be at increased risk of Parkinson’s disease in later life, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Neurology.

Patrícia R. Faustino, MD, from the faculty of medicine at the University of Lisboa (Portgual), and coauthors reviewed and analyzed seven articles – four cohort studies and three cross-sectional studies – that reported data on idiopathic Parkinson’s disease in patients with bipolar disorder, compared with those without. The meta-analysis found that individuals with a previous diagnosis of bipolar disorder had a 235% higher risk of being later diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Even after removing studies with a high risk of bias, the risk was still 3.21 times higher in those with bipolar disorder, compared with those without.

“The pathophysiological rationale between bipolar disorder and Parkinson’s disease might be explained by the dopamine dysregulation hypothesis, which states that the cyclical process of bipolar disorder in manic states leads to a down-regulation of dopamine receptor sensitivity (depression phase), which is later compensated by up-regulation (manic state),” the authors wrote. “Over time, this phenomenon may lead to an overall reduction of dopaminergic activity, the prototypical Parkinson’s disease state.”

Subgroup analysis revealed that subgroups with shorter follow-up periods – less than 9 years – had a greater increase in the risk of a later Parkinson’s disease diagnosis. The authors noted that this could represent misdiagnosis of parkinsonism – possibly drug induced – as Parkinson’s disease. The researchers also raised the possibility that the increased risk of Parkinson’s disease in patients with bipolar disorder could relate to long-term lithium use, rather than being a causal relationship. “However, treatment with lithium is foundational in bipolar disorder, and so to separate the causal effect from a potential confounder would be particularly difficult,” they wrote.

One of the studies included did explore the use of lithium, and found that lithium monotherapy was associated with a significant increase in the risk of being diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease or taking antiparkinsonism medication, compared with antidepressant therapy. However the authors commented that the diagnostic code may not differentiate Parkinson’s disease from other causes of parkinsonism.

Given their findings, the authors suggested that, if patients with bipolar disorder present with parkinsonism features, it may not necessarily be drug induced. In these patients, they recommended an investigation for Parkinson’s disease, perhaps using functional neuroimaging “as Parkinson’s disease classically presents with nigrostriatal degeneration while drug-induced parkinsonism does not.”

Two authors declared grants and personal fees from the pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Faustino PR et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Oct 14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.3446.

Patients with bipolar disorder may be at increased risk of Parkinson’s disease in later life, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Neurology.

Patrícia R. Faustino, MD, from the faculty of medicine at the University of Lisboa (Portgual), and coauthors reviewed and analyzed seven articles – four cohort studies and three cross-sectional studies – that reported data on idiopathic Parkinson’s disease in patients with bipolar disorder, compared with those without. The meta-analysis found that individuals with a previous diagnosis of bipolar disorder had a 235% higher risk of being later diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Even after removing studies with a high risk of bias, the risk was still 3.21 times higher in those with bipolar disorder, compared with those without.

“The pathophysiological rationale between bipolar disorder and Parkinson’s disease might be explained by the dopamine dysregulation hypothesis, which states that the cyclical process of bipolar disorder in manic states leads to a down-regulation of dopamine receptor sensitivity (depression phase), which is later compensated by up-regulation (manic state),” the authors wrote. “Over time, this phenomenon may lead to an overall reduction of dopaminergic activity, the prototypical Parkinson’s disease state.”

Subgroup analysis revealed that subgroups with shorter follow-up periods – less than 9 years – had a greater increase in the risk of a later Parkinson’s disease diagnosis. The authors noted that this could represent misdiagnosis of parkinsonism – possibly drug induced – as Parkinson’s disease. The researchers also raised the possibility that the increased risk of Parkinson’s disease in patients with bipolar disorder could relate to long-term lithium use, rather than being a causal relationship. “However, treatment with lithium is foundational in bipolar disorder, and so to separate the causal effect from a potential confounder would be particularly difficult,” they wrote.

One of the studies included did explore the use of lithium, and found that lithium monotherapy was associated with a significant increase in the risk of being diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease or taking antiparkinsonism medication, compared with antidepressant therapy. However the authors commented that the diagnostic code may not differentiate Parkinson’s disease from other causes of parkinsonism.

Given their findings, the authors suggested that, if patients with bipolar disorder present with parkinsonism features, it may not necessarily be drug induced. In these patients, they recommended an investigation for Parkinson’s disease, perhaps using functional neuroimaging “as Parkinson’s disease classically presents with nigrostriatal degeneration while drug-induced parkinsonism does not.”

Two authors declared grants and personal fees from the pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Faustino PR et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Oct 14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.3446.

Patients with bipolar disorder may be at increased risk of Parkinson’s disease in later life, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Neurology.

Patrícia R. Faustino, MD, from the faculty of medicine at the University of Lisboa (Portgual), and coauthors reviewed and analyzed seven articles – four cohort studies and three cross-sectional studies – that reported data on idiopathic Parkinson’s disease in patients with bipolar disorder, compared with those without. The meta-analysis found that individuals with a previous diagnosis of bipolar disorder had a 235% higher risk of being later diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Even after removing studies with a high risk of bias, the risk was still 3.21 times higher in those with bipolar disorder, compared with those without.

“The pathophysiological rationale between bipolar disorder and Parkinson’s disease might be explained by the dopamine dysregulation hypothesis, which states that the cyclical process of bipolar disorder in manic states leads to a down-regulation of dopamine receptor sensitivity (depression phase), which is later compensated by up-regulation (manic state),” the authors wrote. “Over time, this phenomenon may lead to an overall reduction of dopaminergic activity, the prototypical Parkinson’s disease state.”

Subgroup analysis revealed that subgroups with shorter follow-up periods – less than 9 years – had a greater increase in the risk of a later Parkinson’s disease diagnosis. The authors noted that this could represent misdiagnosis of parkinsonism – possibly drug induced – as Parkinson’s disease. The researchers also raised the possibility that the increased risk of Parkinson’s disease in patients with bipolar disorder could relate to long-term lithium use, rather than being a causal relationship. “However, treatment with lithium is foundational in bipolar disorder, and so to separate the causal effect from a potential confounder would be particularly difficult,” they wrote.

One of the studies included did explore the use of lithium, and found that lithium monotherapy was associated with a significant increase in the risk of being diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease or taking antiparkinsonism medication, compared with antidepressant therapy. However the authors commented that the diagnostic code may not differentiate Parkinson’s disease from other causes of parkinsonism.

Given their findings, the authors suggested that, if patients with bipolar disorder present with parkinsonism features, it may not necessarily be drug induced. In these patients, they recommended an investigation for Parkinson’s disease, perhaps using functional neuroimaging “as Parkinson’s disease classically presents with nigrostriatal degeneration while drug-induced parkinsonism does not.”

Two authors declared grants and personal fees from the pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Faustino PR et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Oct 14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.3446.

Oct. 31 is the deadline for the Vascular Surgery Trainee Advocacy Travel Scholarship. The primary purpose of this award is to provide the recipient with an opportunity to participate in Capitol Hill visits and learn more about the SVS’ health policy and advocacy activities. The awardee will receive $1,500 that can be used toward the cost of travel, housing and subsistence during the visits. Reports from past recipients are available on the SVS website here. For questions, email studentresident@vascularsociety.org or telephone 800-258-7188.

Oct. 31 is the deadline for the Vascular Surgery Trainee Advocacy Travel Scholarship. The primary purpose of this award is to provide the recipient with an opportunity to participate in Capitol Hill visits and learn more about the SVS’ health policy and advocacy activities. The awardee will receive $1,500 that can be used toward the cost of travel, housing and subsistence during the visits. Reports from past recipients are available on the SVS website here. For questions, email studentresident@vascularsociety.org or telephone 800-258-7188.

Oct. 31 is the deadline for the Vascular Surgery Trainee Advocacy Travel Scholarship. The primary purpose of this award is to provide the recipient with an opportunity to participate in Capitol Hill visits and learn more about the SVS’ health policy and advocacy activities. The awardee will receive $1,500 that can be used toward the cost of travel, housing and subsistence during the visits. Reports from past recipients are available on the SVS website here. For questions, email studentresident@vascularsociety.org or telephone 800-258-7188.

Registration is now open for two webinars hosted by the SVS Community Practice Committee. Sign up for webinars focusing on “Hiring for the Right Clinical Fit” and/or “Credentialing and Privileging for New Procedures and Technologies.” These webinars are meant to help you advance your practice – register here. If you have any questions, please contact Chantel Moore at cmoore@vascularsociety.org.

Registration is now open for two webinars hosted by the SVS Community Practice Committee. Sign up for webinars focusing on “Hiring for the Right Clinical Fit” and/or “Credentialing and Privileging for New Procedures and Technologies.” These webinars are meant to help you advance your practice – register here. If you have any questions, please contact Chantel Moore at cmoore@vascularsociety.org.

Registration is now open for two webinars hosted by the SVS Community Practice Committee. Sign up for webinars focusing on “Hiring for the Right Clinical Fit” and/or “Credentialing and Privileging for New Procedures and Technologies.” These webinars are meant to help you advance your practice – register here. If you have any questions, please contact Chantel Moore at cmoore@vascularsociety.org.

The SVS has officially announced its new Mentor Match program on its online community, SVSConnect. This program provides a simple way for general surgery residents and medical students to match with vascular surgeons who will, ideally, help guide them on their career path. If you are an Active SVS member you are encouraged to participate as a mentor. Medical Students and General Surgery Residents are welcome to enroll as mentees. Not a member? Visit the SVS membership page here. Questions? Reach out to communications@vascularsociety.org.

The SVS has officially announced its new Mentor Match program on its online community, SVSConnect. This program provides a simple way for general surgery residents and medical students to match with vascular surgeons who will, ideally, help guide them on their career path. If you are an Active SVS member you are encouraged to participate as a mentor. Medical Students and General Surgery Residents are welcome to enroll as mentees. Not a member? Visit the SVS membership page here. Questions? Reach out to communications@vascularsociety.org.

The SVS has officially announced its new Mentor Match program on its online community, SVSConnect. This program provides a simple way for general surgery residents and medical students to match with vascular surgeons who will, ideally, help guide them on their career path. If you are an Active SVS member you are encouraged to participate as a mentor. Medical Students and General Surgery Residents are welcome to enroll as mentees. Not a member? Visit the SVS membership page here. Questions? Reach out to communications@vascularsociety.org.