Background: United States (US) and European Union (EU) legislation attempts to counterbalance the presumed discrimination in pediatric drug treatment and development.
Methods: We analyzed the history of drug development, US/EU pediatric laws, and pediatric studies required by US/EU regulatory authorities and reviewed relevant literature.
Results: The US and EU definitions of a child are defined administratively (rather than physiologically) as being aged <17 years and <18 years, respectively. However, children mature physiologically well before their seventeenth or eighteenth birthdays. The semantic blur for these differing definitions may indicate certain conflicts of interest.
Conclusions: Pediatric healthcare today is better than ever. Regulatory-related requirements for “pediatric” studies focus on labeling. Most of these studies lack medical usefulness and may even harm pediatric patients through administration of placebo and/or substandard treatment, despite the resultant publications, networking, patent extensions, and strengthened regulatory standing. Clinicians, parents, and ethics committees should be aware of these issues. New rules are needed to determine new pharmaceutical dose estimates in prepubescent patients, and when/how to clinically confirm them. Internet-based structures to divulge this information should be established between drug developers, clinicians, and regulatory authorities. A prerequisite for the rational use of pharmaceuticals in children would be to correct the flawed concept that children are discriminated against in drug treatment and development, and to abandon separate pediatric drug approval processes.
Objective: To review current medical literature on the risks and potential benefits of e-cigarette use and its permissibility under Jewish law.
Methods: A survey of current medical literature about the risks and potential benefits of e-cigarette use, and a review of existing rabbinic literature regarding both combustible and e-cigarette products.
Results: E-cigarettes contain fewer harmful materials than do combustible cigarettes. However, they are not risk-free. Their skyrocketing use among youth is of concern, as e-cigarettes lead to nicotine addiction and are a gateway to combustible cigarettes. Preliminary data indicate that e-cigarettes increase the risk of myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and emphysema and are no more effective as aids to smoking cessation than US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved interventions with acceptable safety profiles. Few halakhic decisors have opined on the permissibility of e-cigarettes, but extrapolating from halakhic discussions regarding combustible cigarettes strongly suggests that they would prohibit e-cigarettes based on government warnings and preliminary data demonstrating increased risk of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, at the least because of possible danger (safek sakana). Among youth and pregnant women, for whom e-cigarettes are particularly dangerous and for whom the government has administered explicit warnings, a Jewish legal prohibition should be absolute. There is a unique obligation to prevent youth from obtaining these products. Jewish law might also prohibit deriving benefit from the sale or advertisement of these products.
Conclusions: Extrapolating from rabbinic literature regarding combustible cigarettes, the preliminary data establishing the dangers of e-cigarettes and the government warnings against usage would render these products prohibited under Jewish law, especially for youth and pregnant women.
Objective: The World Health Organization’s (WHO) guidelines for cancer pain management were intentionally made simple in order to be widely implemented by all physicians treating cancer patients. Referrals to pain specialists are advised if pain does not improve within a short time. The present study examined whether or not a reasonable use of the WHO guideline was made by non-pain specialists prior to referral of patients with cancer-related pain to a pain clinic.
Methods: Cancer patients referred to a pain specialist completed several questionnaires including demographics, medical history, and cancer-related pain; the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ); and the Short Form Health Survey SF-12. Data from referral letters and medical records were obtained. Treatments recommended by pain specialists were recorded and categorized as “unjustified” if they were within the WHO ladder framework, or “justified” if they included additional treatments.
Results: Seventy-three patients (44 women, 29 men) aged 55 years (range, 25–85) participated in the study. Their pain lasted for a mean of 6 (1–192) months. Mean pain intensity scores on a 0–10 numerical rating scale were 7 (2–10) at rest and 8 (3–10) upon movement. Most patients complied with their referring physician’s recommendations and consumed opioids. Adverse events were frequent. No significant correlation was found between the WHO analgesic medication step used and mean pain levels reported. There were 63 patient referrals (85%) categorized as “unjustified,” whereas only 11 patients (15%) required “justified” interventions.
Conclusions: These findings imply that analgesic treatment within the WHO framework was not reasonably utilized by non-pain specialists before referring patients to pain clinics.
Background: The use of electric bicycles (E-bikes) has dramatically increased over the last decade. E-bikes offer an inexpensive, alternative form of transport, but also pose a new public health challenge in terms of safety and injury prevention.
Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the epidemiology and severity of E-bike related injuries among children treated in the emergency department (ED) and to compare these to manual bicycle related injuries.
Methods: A retrospective observational study of all pediatric patients presenting to the ED between December 2014 and November 2015 with an injury related to E-bike or manual bicycle use. Data including demographics, diagnosis, injury severity score (ISS), and outcome were compared.
Results: A total of 196 cyclist injuries presented to the ED; 85 related to E-bike use and 111 to manual bicycle riders. The mean age of E-bikers was 13.7 years (7.5–16 years) and of manual bicycle riders was 9.9 years (3–16 years). Injuries to the head and the extremities were common in both groups. E-bikers had significantly more intra-abdominal organ injury (P=0.047). Injury severity scores were low overall, but injuries of higher severity (ISS>9) only occurred among the E-bikers.
Conclusions: Pediatric E-bike injuries tend to be more severe than those sustained during manual bicycle riding. Further research into bicycle and other road and pavement users could lead to enhanced regulation regarding E-bike usage.
Neuropsychiatric involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE) is a complex condition that remains poorly understood, and includes heterogeneous manifestations involving both the central and peripheral nervous system, with disabling effects. There are several models to improve NPSLE diagnosis when a neurological syndrome is present. In the last couple of years, the growing knowledge of the role of cytokines and antibodies in NPSLE, as well as the development of new functional imaging techniques, has brought some insights into the physiopathology of the disease, but their validation for clinical use remains undetermined. Furthermore, besides the classic clinical approach, a new tool for screening the 19 NPSLE syndromes has also been developed. Regarding NPSLE therapeutics, there is still no evidence-based treatment approach, but some data support the safety of biological medication when classic treatment fails. Despite the tendency to reclassify SLE patients in clinical and immunological subsets, we hope that these data will inspire medical professionals to approach NPSLE in a manner more tailored to the individual patient.
Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is the most common chronic disease of childhood. Improved understanding of its pathogenesis has led to international cooperation in clinical studies. Multicenter, international collaborations and research facilitate rapid enrollment of enough patients to enable a variety of studies, including those of epidemiology, diagnostic and classification criteria, genetic disease predisposition, pathogenesis, outcomes, and treatment protocols. In the last 20 years, the vision of the Pediatric Rheumatology International Trial Organization (PRINTO) has become a reality of worldwide collaboration in pediatric rheumatology research, including North American and European research groups. Major advances have been made in treating systemic JIA and its main complication, macrophage-activating syndrome (MAS). Single Hub and Access Point to Pediatric Rheumatology in Europe (SHARE) is a project of the European Society of Pediatric Rheumatology with the goal of improving clinical care. Based on evidence in the scientific literature, position papers regarding optimal clinical approaches and care have been published. Formal, validated assessment tools to evaluate response to treatment have been developed. Recommendations have been established to encourage international research collaborations, especially in light of major advances achieved in the genetics of pediatric rheumatologic diseases and the need to share biological samples among different countries and continents. Every participating country has disease information available for patients and families. Additionally, educational programs and updated syllabi for pediatric rheumatology have been written to promote similar, high-level academic training in different countries. These efforts have resulted in significant improvements in treatment and in patient prognosis. However, improved cooperation is needed to enhance research with biological and genetic samples. The Israeli Research Group for Pediatric Rheumatology is very active and has made significant contributions to the field.
To the Editor, the article of Krutikov and Manson1 was interesting. However, no comment was made on the impact and related clinical epidemiology of the chikungunya virus (CHIKV) infection during the 2014–2015 epidemics in Latin America, the most recent area affected by CHIKV. Certainly, persistent musculoskeletal manifestations of the disease have been shown to affect a highly variable proportion of infected patients (even >87%). Following the epidemics in La Réunion Island and India,2 and now in Latin America, this disease is having a significant impact. ...
To the Editor, Dr Nair’s letter to the editor regarding the failed nerve blocks mentioned in our paper, “Comparison of the supraclavicular, infraclavicular and axillary approaches for ultrasound-guided brachial plexus block for surgical anesthesia”,1 raised several points that I believe are worth looking at in more detail. We are grateful for Dr Nair’s comments which have contributed to the furthering of scholarly discourse.
In general, Dr Nair’s letter relates to the blocks that our research classified as failed. He then discusses various approaches and suggests the reason for the failures of the axillary approach blocks.
For the purpose of reducing maternal and neonatal morbidity, elective single transfer (eSET) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) was first proposed in 1999. The purpose of this review is to summarize recent oral debate between a proponent and an opponent of expanded eSET utilization in an attempt to determine whether a blanket eSET policy, as is increasingly considered, is defensible. While eSET is preferable when possible, and agreed upon by provider and patient, selective double embryo transfer (DET) must be seriously entertained if deemed more appropriate or is desired by the patient. Patient autonomy, let alone prolonged infertility and advancing age, demand nothing less. Importantly, IVF-generated twins represent only 15.7% of the national twin birth rate in the United States. Non-IVF fertility treatments have been identified as the main cause of all multiple births for quite some time. However, educational and regulatory efforts over the last decade, paradoxically, have exclusively only been directed at the practice of IVF, although IVF patient populations are rapidly aging. It is difficult to understand why non-IVF fertility treatments, usually applied to younger women, have so far escaped attention. This debate on eSET utilization in association with IVF may contribute to a redirection of priorities.
Final oocyte maturation is a crucial step in in vitro fertilization, traditionally achieved with a single bolus of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) given 36 hours before oocyte retrieval. This bolus exposes the patient to the risks of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), particularly in the face of ovarian hyper-response to gonadotropins. Although multiple measures were developed to prevent OHSS, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist triggering is now globally recognized as the best approach to achieve this goal. The first report on the use of GnRH agonist as ovulation trigger in the context of OHSS prevention came from the Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel and appeared in 1988. This review details the events that culminated in worldwide acceptance of this measure and describes its benefit in the field of assisted reproductive technology.
