Letters

To the Editor: We write in response to Reid and colleagues’1 article on congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV). While many countries worldwide have established congenital CMV screening programs, Australia urgently needs to recognise the importance of targeted congenital CMV screening and tracking its outcomes. Our 2019–2020 study tested the feasibility and acceptability of a parent‐completed targeted congenital CMV saliva polymerase chain reaction (PCR) screening program in Victoria.2 Parents of infants who did not pass their newborn hearing screening at four Victorian maternity hospitals completed their infants’ saliva swabs in the hospital or at home. The program was feasible with a 76% participation rate, and all 96 swabs (100%) were completed within the required 21days from birth, despite the majority being completed at home. Furthermore, more than 90% of families found the screen easy to do, thought it was a good idea, and were glad their baby had congenital CMV screening. However, there were challenges: false positive screens due to CMV contamination in breast milk, and excessive time taken from completing the screen to return of results due to reliance on the only laboratory in the state accredited to process saliva CMV PCR. We now have the means to overcome these challenges, determine whether universal congenital CMV screening in Australia is warranted, and systematically track outcomes of targeted congenital CMV screening. For 2years from October 2021, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute’s Generation Victoria (GenV) is recruiting a whole‐of‐state infant–parent cohort, collecting over 110000 saliva swabs from newborns to test for CMV using novel CRISPR technology at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research.3 Our study, funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, will determine the population prevalence of congenital CMV, develop a rapid bedside point‐of‐care test for congenital CMV screening, and establish whether universal congenital CMV screening is cost‐effective. In addition, the Australasian Congenital CMV Registry has been recently established to track outcomes of congenital CMV.4 These initiatives will pave the way for Australia to emerge as a leader in congenital CMV screening, better recognise this undetected condition of public health importance, and provide personalised care to affected children.

Emma Webb · Cheryl A Jones · Valerie Sung

To the Editor: The article by Iorfino and colleagues1 presents interesting follow‐up data on young people attending two mental health clinics. For 1510 of 2901 young people who presented in 2008–2018 with anxiety, mood or psychotic disorders, the authors identified trajectories in social and occupational functioning over 2years. Iorfino and colleagues describe the model as “primary care‐based” and “low intensity”, but it is neither generalist primary care nor low intensity as it comprises headspace plus specialised services and hospitalisation if needed. Several limitations, including 48% of patients excluded and the lack of a comparison group, make any conclusions problematic. Box 3 suggests little average change, but a latent class analysis suggests that one‐third participants who were well functioning at baseline had good functional outcomes, while the remaining two‐thirds “had generally poor functional outcome patterns”. The data are compatible with a range of conclusions, including “findings suggest that employment and engagement in education and training are protective” or “the treatment model makes no discernible difference to young people’s social and occupational functioning”. Yet Iorfino and colleagues claim that “findings suggest that the current primary care‐based model meets the needs of only a minority of young people seeking care” and call for “more comprehensive and multidisciplinary approaches because of substantial comorbidity, ambiguous or attenuated symptomatology”. This sounds like general practice, where undifferentiated illness and multimorbidity are the norm. Contrary to Iorfino et al, who state that “conclusions about the effects of specific treatments cannot be drawn”, McGorry in the accompanying editorial2 claims that findings “clearly illustrate what else is needed” — “more sustained, expert, and multidisciplinary care”. He uses the editorial to champion headspace and request yet more financial support. McGorry characterises the two‐thirds with persisting poor functioning as the “missing middle” for whom he advocates scaling up his model of care, developed for people with psychosis, to “be rapidly installed across the nation”, claiming “Countless lives and futures will be saved”. Given the uncertainty of the evidence, it is difficult to understand how such sweeping claims have survived the peer review process. Decisions on investment in mental health care should be based not on rhetoric, but on a rigorous and impartial review of the evidence and research to develop the evidence base.

Katharine A Wallis · Nicholas A Zwar · Paul P Glasziou

To the Editor: We read with interest the article by Kelly and colleagues,1 In our opinion, the authors’ statement “Access to timely gender‐affirming care is associated with improved mental health outcomes and overall wellbeing” is not well supported by the two citations provided. The first citation is a systematic review by Rew and colleagues.2 A critique of this review was recently published.3 Rew et al, in response, clarified that they did not make any causal statements about puberty blockers and reported improved mental health outcomes, but believe their findings warrant more rigorous longitudinal studies.4 Kelly and colleagues’ second citation is a systematic review by Mahfouda et al.5 This review concluded there is only scarce and preliminary evidence that hormonal and surgical gender‐affirming treatments in adolescents are associated with mental health benefit and improved quality of life. The available evidence was described as having multiple methodological limitations and being at medium to high risk of bias. The authors called for further urgent research to clarify long term outcomes on psychological functioning and safety. Importantly, two recent systematic reviews by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence found that the results of the studies investigating the benefits or adverse effects of puberty blockers and gender‐affirming hormones are of very low certainty and, as the studies themselves may not be reliable, any identified changes could be due to confounding, bias or chance.6,7 The recently published interim report of the UK’s Cass Review also noted that there are different views on the benefits versus harms of early social transition and more information about outcomes is required.8 In conclusion, the literature does not support there being a robust evidence base for the gender‐affirming social, medical and surgical interventions for children and adolescents. Rather, the literature highlights the scarce and low quality evidence and the urgent need for more high quality evidence. In any consideration of the processes of informed consent and/or court consent it would seem imperative that there is acknowledgement of the uncertain evidence base underpinning these interventions. Thus, it is of concern that Kelly and colleagues fail to do this.

Alison Clayton · Roberto D’Angelo · Patrick Clarke

To the Editor: We read with interest the article by Agarwal and colleagues1 outlining the recommendations from the Health Services Research Association of Australia and New Zealand for implementing patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) to guide clinical care. The article regrettably fails to acknowledge that most of the commonly used PROMs — largely developed without direct patient participation — may merely provide a patient‐rated version of a measure that nevertheless reflects the clinician’s or researcher’s, not the patient’s, perspective.2,3 Importantly, “patient‐reported” conveys only that the measurement instrument — usually a scale or questionnaire — is completed by the patient. The emphasis is placed on the source of the information (ie, the patient) rather than on its content. It does not automatically imply that the information thus obtained is necessarily of value or relevance to the patient. As an attempt to shed light on this issue, our group elaborated a classification system for PROMs according to the degree of patient involvement in their development:2 patient‐generated PROMs — a type of PROM developed entirely from the patient perspective, as at all stages of PROM development the researchers are themselves patients; patient‐centred PROMs — a kind of PROM that explicitly incorporates, to a greater or lesser extent, patient priorities, given that patients themselves codeveloped the PROM jointly with other stakeholders (eg, clinicians); patient‐valued PROMs — a variety of PROM developed without patient input but valued by most patients because it reflects, at least in part, their priorities; and patient‐irrelevant PROMs — a type of PROM developed entirely without patient participation, whose contents are evaluated as not relevant by patients themselves. Fortunately, the epistemic injustice of disregarding the patient’s perspective in PROMs development is being progressively abandoned, and there seems to be a growing consensus that patients should be significantly involved — through truly participatory methods — in developing any new PROM.2,4,5 Without genuinely incorporating the patient’s perspective in PROMs development, PROMs collection will not contribute to a true and meaningful involvement of patients in their health care.

Joan Trujols · Santiago Duran‐Sindreu · Maria J Portella

To the Editor: The impetigo burden for Australian Aboriginal children living in remote areas is the highest in the world, affecting 45% at any one time.1 This unacceptable public health crisis contributes to ongoing high rates of rheumatic fever and glomerulonephritis, both sequelae of Streptococcus pyogenes or group A streptococcus (GAS) infection.2 GAS infection is the key immediate driver of impetigo.3 Colonisation, social determinants and inadequate housing are overarching drivers.4 To reduce the skin infection burden, the See, Treat, Prevent (SToP) Trial (registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618000520235) was funded as a stepped wedge, cluster randomised trial in partnership with Aboriginal service providers and communities to see, treat and prevent skin infections.1 Before commencing, a situational analysis5 was performed in 2017 to describe trends, driving forces and conditions related to skin infections. The situational analysis5 identified the complex, courageous yet under‐resourced environmental health and health promotion activities in the Kimberley that could be included as prevention aspects in the SToP Trial1 and found: • a well established program of health advocacy and collaboration integrating public and environmental health which prioritises prevention; • remote Aboriginal populations remain relatively stable with predictable mobility between communities, in contrast to the high turnover of the predominantly non‐Aboriginal health workforce; and • access to household maintenance throughout Kimberley communities, necessary to prevent skin infections, remains limited and frequently under‐resourced. Despite this need, the resourcing required for this sector to deliver on these services has not occurred.6 Before the SToP Trial, prior skin infection studies focused on biomedical treatments as short term solutions to improve skin health.1 Integration of diagnosis, treatment and prevention activities in a single trial to inform skin disease control is novel and needful. Aboriginal communities and health care organisations highlighted the urgent need to incorporate prevention to reduce the inequitable burden of skin infections. The key findings of the situational analysis are as follows:5 • services are working together to combat the high burden of skin infections in the Kimberley; • the immediate environment continues to contribute to poor skin health and is an area for intervention; • addressing the social determinants of health is critical to reducing skin infections; • partnerships are required to appropriately achieve the healthy living practices; and • the Kimberley has led the way with the development of the environmental health referral form. The SToP Trial includes clinic and school staff training modules for the identification and treatment of skin infections. These include online options to overcome the logistic challenges limiting face‐to‐face professional development in isolated locations and to support continuous training of new staff. The stability of the community is a strength and community requests have led to the incorporation of family training packages. Partnerships between primary health care and environmental health service providers are allowing for the better integration of prevention measures within communities. Capitalising on the advocacy and collaboration demonstrated by Aboriginal leaders across the region has aided SToP Trial initiatives, with results expected in 2023.

Frieda McLoughlin · Vicki O’Donnell · Asha C Bowen

To the Editor: Wu and colleagues1 describe a case of congenital syphilis where the mother had no apparent risk factors and a single negative syphilis serology collected in early pregnancy. The father had an identifiable risk factor. In metropolitan Perth, Western Australia, infectious syphilis among women of reproductive age is rising, with an over 18‐fold increase from 2015 to 2021 (Box). During this period, most cases (229, 74.1%) were non‐Indigenous women. This growth has been accompanied by cases in pregnancy and, concerningly, neonates with congenital syphilis. The authors1 observed that identifying risk factors during pregnancy is challenging. They may be absent, difficult to ascertain, subject to change during the pregnancy, and are dependent on the pregnant woman and her sexual partners, whose risks she may not know. Identification relies on health care providers checking the risk throughout pregnancy and on whether the woman recognises, discloses or feels safe to discuss a risk factor. In Perth, syphilis diagnoses among pregnant women are occurring across cultural backgrounds. While some women have additional risks such as insecure housing or illicit drug use, this is not the norm. Consequently, and because we have likewise observed neonates with congenital syphilis born to women who screened negative early in pregnancy, routine syphilis serology at initial visit and at 28 and 36weeks (or delivery, if earlier) is now recommended for all pregnant women in metropolitan Perth as per the WA sexual health guidelines2 and local obstetric guidelines.3 This was achieved through the collaboration of clinical and public health staff under the Antenatal and Postnatal Working Group of the WA Syphilis Outbreak Response Group, where a decision was made that monitoring risk factors throughout pregnancy has limitations. Three‐test syphilis screening for all pregnant women minimises the risk of congenital syphilis occurring because of an unrecognised risk factor, ensures emerging risk factors are not missed, helps normalise testing and reduce stigma, and recognises that women remain sexually active while pregnant. Notably, screening is not a replacement for good history taking and clinical examination, but syphilis can present in subtle and unusual ways that can be overlooked. Routine syphilis testing at the first antenatal visit is advised by the Australian sexually transmissible infections guidelines.4 A test early in the third trimester is recommended depending on local guidelines.4 As syphilis rates grow in many parts of Australia,5 other jurisdictions should consider adopting additional routine syphilis screening for all pregnant women. Box – Infectious syphilis cases among women of reproductive age, 2015–2021 Data sources: The number of cases were obtained from the Western Australian Notifiable Infectious Diseases Database, Department of Health Western Australia (Jan 2022); and the rate of cases were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics census‐derived population data from the Epidemiology Branch, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Western Australia Department of Health (Dec 2021).

Hannah MacKenzie · Suzanne McEvoy · Michelle Porter

To the Editor: In Australia, up to 40% of women have experienced an unintended pregnancy,1 which can be associated with suboptimal pre‐conception health behaviour and reproductive health care engagement and adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.1 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women experience higher rates of pregnancy risk factors, adverse perinatal outcomes, and adolescent pregnancy compared with non‐Indigenous women.2 However, little is known about the prevalence and impact of unintended pregnancy among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. While two related national studies have been undertaken over the past decade, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were underrepresented1 or Indigeneity was unreported.3 Access to sexual and reproductive health care is a government priority,4 but without adequate data, dealing with issues or evaluating change will be impossible. This knowledge gap must be addressed. We need to better understand the prevalence, experiences and outcomes of unintended pregnancy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (acknowledging that unintended does not necessarily mean unwanted), including issues relating to pregnancy intentions, decision making, and health care access. Meaningful engagement and collaboration with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and researchers are required to confirm priority issues, design culturally appropriate data collection processes, and achieve a nationally representative sample. Data sources such as those held by primary health care providers and Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations have an untapped potential to highlight the needs and priorities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, should they be used with appropriate consultation and respect for Indigenous data sovereignty. Furthermore, knowledge gained must inform the national policy gap that exists in the area of holistic reproductive health. A national reproductive health policy and an implementation plan that address unintended pregnancy, decision making and management are urgently needed. These must be developed with due consideration to the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from a strengths‐based paradigm and a decolonising approach that recognises historical reproductive rights violations.5 Data collection within a supportive policy framework will inform service provision, education and health promotion initiatives to improve maternal and infant outcomes and support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and families in choosing whether and when they have children.

Jessica Botfield · Emma Griffiths · Faye McMillan · Danielle Mazza

To the Editor: We read with interest the letter by Withers and colleagues1 highlighting the research waste generated by the inclusion of research in the selection criteria for specialist training in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. We agree the inclusion of research for selection or completion of specialty training produces unintended incentives that contribute to poor quality studies and research waste. We also support the notion that “research utilisation, research training, or participation in large research teams” should be prioritised by colleges. Selection criteria for medical specialty training should incentivise contribution to high quality projects and the development of research literacy and skills, rather than publishing many small, low impact articles. Student‐ and trainee‐led collaborative research groups, such as the TASMAN (Trials and Audit in Surgery by Medical Students in Australia and New Zealand) Collaborative, provide a promising solution to this research waste.2,3 Similar groups have emerged locally and internationally and have successfully delivered large randomised controlled trials and cohort studies.2,3,4 These high impact publications have provided practice‐changing results4 as well as training and opportunities for collaborators to develop research skills. Locally, medical students, junior doctors and surgical trainees have contributed to the recent SUNRRiSE (Single Use Negative Pressure Dressing for Reduction in Surgical Site Infection Following Emergency Laparotomy) randomised controlled trial,5 and POSTVenTT (Postoperative Variations in Anaemia Treatment and Transfusions) prospective audit,6 the results of which are eagerly awaited. Despite this, the contribution to collaborative research studies is not currently recognised for selection into most specialty training programs in Australia or Aotearoa New Zealand. We echo the calls of our international counterparts for participation in collaborative research to be accounted for in applications for postgraduate training.7 We applaud the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and General Surgeons Australia for incorporating collaborative research as part of the selection criteria and the points‐based research requirements during General Surgical Education and Training in 2022,8,9 and hope that other specialties follow suit. We look forward to the emergence of student‐ and trainee‐led collaborative groups from other medical specialties in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Further recognition of collaborative research will improve research skills in medical graduates, reduce research waste and, most importantly, generate meaningful data to improve patient outcomes.

TASMAN Collaborative

To the Editor: We present a case of hypotensive shock after insulin pump delivery interruption during a diabetes technology trial, and offer a systematic insulin pump troubleshooting approach.1 A 61‐year‐old woman with long‐duration type 1 diabetes using an insulin pump, coronary artery disease and hypertension presented to an emergency department with hyperglycaemia, hypotension and presyncope. She had self‐identified insulin pump delivery interruption but felt too unwell to troubleshoot independently. Initial subcutaneous insulin bolus dose administration via the pump as directed by the hospital doctor was ineffective and diabetic ketoacidosis developed. In the context of cardiovascular comorbidities and antihypertensives, including transdermal glyceryl trinitrate, the patient deteriorated rapidly progressing to hypotensive shock requiring intensive care. Insulin delivery interruption was ultimately attributed to line blockage; earlier identification and prompt administration of insulin via an alternative route may have avoided the development of ketoacidosis. Therapeutic diabetes technology is evolving, with an increasing proportion of people with type 1 diabetes now using insulin pumps to replace lost pancreatic β‐cell function.2 Insulin pumps subcutaneously infuse rapid‐acting insulin alone, providing both background basal and bolus insulin doses. These insulin preparations have peak effect at 1–2 hours and duration of action of about 4 hours. Therefore, for people with type 1 diabetes, insulin pump delivery interruption typically causes relative insulin deficiency within 2 hours and absolute insulin deficiency within 4 hours with consequent risk of rapid development of hyperglycaemia, ketosis and ketoacidosis.3 Pump users are routinely instructed on how to troubleshoot insulin delivery problems, including proactive self‐management of pump‐related issues; however, management may revert to clinicians during acute illness. All clinicians should therefore be familiar with common complications during insulin pump therapy, and when to convert to an alternative route of insulin administration to prevent rapid metabolic deterioration.4 The treatment of hyperglycaemia and ketosis is time‐critical, and decisions regarding insulin pump continuation during hospital admissions should be individualised within the acute context.4,5 Once stabilised, patients should reconnect with their diabetes management team for ongoing education. We present a systematic approach to managing rising blood glucose and/or ketones during insulin pump use (Box). As the vignette illustrates, individuals with medical comorbid conditions are at risk of rapid, life‐threatening deterioration after insulin pump delivery interruption. Box – Clinical practice flowchart of steps to troubleshoot insulin pump delivery‐related problems SGLT‐2 = sodium glucose co‐transporter 2. The potential causes of insulin delivery interruption are presented systematically from the site of insulin delivery to the insulin pump. * Hyperglycaemia generally considered to be glucose level>14mmol/L. † Ketosis generally considered to be ketone level>0.6mmol/L. Clinicians should consider the flowchart to be a general guide; always adapt treatment approach to the clinical presentation and refer to local policies and procedures. Management of hyperglycaemia and ketosis is time‐critical; refer to the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and Australian Diabetes Society joint clinical position statement for a primary care emergency management algorithm.4 Assess whether it is clinically appropriate for hospitalised patients to continue insulin pump therapy.5 Inset: Schematic diagram of the main components of insulin pump therapy; the insulin “infusion set” comprises the cannula (inserted subcutaneously), delivery line and insulin reservoir.

Anindita Chakrabarti · Richard J MacIsaac · Sybil A McAuley

To the Editor: We thank Polkinghorne and Kerr1 for their editorial on the health care needs of people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We write to highlight the burden of visual loss suffered by people with CKD and its effects on quality of life and mortality. The prevalence of eye diseases associated with visual impairment (combined World Health Organization definitions of blindness and low vision) in people with CKD is about 36%, rising to about 60% in people with end‐stage renal disease.2 The commonest causes of visual impairment are diabetic retinopathy (prevalence in patients with CKD, 19–46%), cataract (prevalence, 33–75%) and age‐related macular degeneration (prevalence, 8–36%).2 Increased incidence of retinal vein occlusions and hypertensive retinopathy are also associated with CKD. Patients receiving haemodialysis have increased risk of additional ocular complications. A recent study of 121 patients found at least one ocular finding in over 89% cases, including conjunctival (32%) and corneal (32%) calcification, and optic atrophy (19%).3 Ectopic calcification has been a common cause of irritated eyes in patients receiving dialysis, but this may be decreasing with modern dialysis methods. Increased risk of optic atrophy may be related to chronic anaemia and an increased risk of non‐arteritic anterior ischaemic optic neuropathy. Uraemic optic neuropathy is now an uncommon event. People with CKD are recognised to have an increased risk of dying from heart disease (up to 20 times that of age and gender matched people for people on haemodialysis).4,5 Vision impairment may incrementally contribute to increased mortality; a recent meta‐analysis demonstrated an all‐cause mortality hazard ratio of 1.43 (95% CI, 1.22–1.68) for visual acuity worse than 6/18.6 Vision‐related quality of life is potentially reduced in people with CKD, affecting their ability to complete activities of daily living and their social, emotional and economic wellbeing. Vision loss is associated with increased risk of falls and increased mental health burden, typically anxiety and depression, and may limit the ability to live independently, including self‐medicating with insulin and performing home dialysis. Multiple studies show people rate losing vision as worse than losing hearing, memory, speech or a limb.7 We agree that supportive care clinics for people electing to not receive kidney replacement therapy are important, and suggest that these clinics include regular eye care services.

Heather G Mack · Deborah J Colville · Judith A Savige

To the Editor: Recently published studies have highlighted concerns that pulse oximeter devices may underestimate hypoxia (overestimate oxygen saturation) in patients with dark skin. This occurs at levels where key decisions are made around supplemental oxygen and hospital admission (arterial oxygen saturation [SaO2] 88–94%). Amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, this important public health issue prompted the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to publish a medical device safety update.1 Long‐standing concerns about reduced pulse oximeter accuracy in people with dark skin2,3 have evolved into characterisation of significant racial discrepancies. A recent article compared 48097 pairs of measurements by pulse oximetry and arterial blood gas (ABG) in adults receiving oxygen across 179 hospitals in the United States. Among patients saturating >92% on pulse oximetry, hypoxaemia (ABG saturation<88%) was nearly three times more common in black patients than in white patients. Graphs illustrate the median oxygen saturation bias for black patients was 3% in the 89–96% range.4 A recent retrospective cohort study analysed registry SaO2 data in 372 individuals (73.1% with COVID‐19) about to undergo extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory failure. In patients with pulse oximeter readings of 92–96%, ABG oxygen saturation was <88% in 21.5% of black patients and in 10.2% of white patients.5 In these retrospective audits, patient ethnicity was based on hospital record identification, not skin colour. The oximetry devices used were not specified. COVID‐19 guidelines may incorporate pulse oximeter readings into decisions regarding hospital transfer of home‐care patients. Clinicians and services should arguably have lower thresholds for hospital review and admission of patients with dark skin (including Indigenous Australians and those of African and South Asian descent) with borderline oxygen saturations, while balancing risks of increased ABG and invasive treatment rates. Device manufacturers should develop pulse oximeters that perform accurately across more diverse populations. Further research must identify mechanisms of racial discrepancies in oxygen saturation and address them through device design. Calibration and testing processes for existing devices should be strengthened. The pre‐market approval processes of the US Food and Drug Administration currently require that only 15% of a study population have darker skin, while Australia has no specified requirement. The TGA does not regulate pulse oximeters sold directly to consumers (in stores or online) for general wellness or sporting purposes only. There are significant constraints on the scope for regulatory interventions for medical device pulse oximeters: this essential equipment cannot be excluded from the market or its supply compromised; mandating changes to instructions for use may have limited impact; differentiating between devices is hampered by evidence limitations and any consequent actions would be legally fraught; and mandating accuracy studies would be difficult to enforce. Contemporary evidence demonstrates that dark skin is a risk factor for hypoxia being undetected by pulse oximetry. Clinicians should adjust treatments and guidelines accordingly and consider audits of devices used in their institutions. Failure to address this problem at a design and testing level compromises racial equity in health care outcomes.

Jeffrey J Brownscombe · Heather Loane · Bridget Honan

To the Editor: The rapid uptake of telehealth has been a cornerstone of the response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, and has ensured the provision of essential health care despite restrictions and lockdowns. Although not new technology, telehealth has dramatically increased in prominence and received broad acceptance by doctors and patients alike. Given its success, the Australian Government has confirmed the permanent retention of multiple telehealth item numbers within the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS).1 However, it is concerning that this announcement also contained the fine print that the long‐standing MBS incentive for providing telepsychiatry consultations to rural and remote patients will be abolished. This is despite patients in rural and remote communities experiencing well established difficulties accessing health care and having poorer outcomes than their metropolitan counterparts.2 Telehealth consultations have occurred in psychiatry since well before the COVID‐19 pandemic, and have filled an important gap in the workforce by increasing services available in rural and remote areas.3 Video‐based consultations are particularly suited to psychiatry as the key skills of history taking, mental state examination, and psychotherapy do not require physical proximity. Delivering diagnostic assessment and psychological treatment via telehealth have long been demonstrated to be effective and tolerable.4,5 The MBS item number 288 was introduced in 2011 as an adjunct billing code that attracted a 50% loading for psychiatric consultations conducted via telehealth for patients located in a rural or remote setting, aged care facility, or Aboriginal health service. This loading incentivised bulk‐billing of these telehealth assessments. The deletion of this item number from 1 January 2022 will likely result in two adverse consequences: i) fewer telepsychiatry consultations to rural and remote locations will be bulk billed, and ii) telepsychiatry appointments that previously were only available for rural and remote patients will increasingly be offered to metropolitan patients. This will ensure fewer and less affordable options. The cessation of the rural loading for telehealth assessments is a retrograde step that is likely to further entrench long‐standing inequities in both access to care and patient outcomes for psychiatric patients who do not live in the cities. The 288 item number should be reinstated or replaced with an alternative funding mechanism to ensure bulk billed consultations continue to be available for rural and remote patients.

Michael J Weightman

To the Editor: The socio‐economic modelling of the impact of a hypothetical disease‐modifying treatment (DMT) for Alzheimer disease by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM)1 is an interesting contribution to what is a critical question for policymakers: how effective does a new antidementia treatment need to be to justify a given cost to the community? Unfortunately, the report does not address this, and several internal deficits call into question the conclusions: • The disease progression pathway lacks backwards transitions. It is commonly understood that mild cognitive impairment is an unstable diagnostic state; individuals are at higher risk for transition to dementia, but a predictable proportion also spontaneously revert back to cognitive normality.2 • The durability of DMT efficacy is unrealistic. It is implausible to assume that a 12‐month treatment with an anti‐amyloid will deliver lifelong cognitive benefits after cessation. In the EMERGE and ENGAGE trials,3 the treatment was for the duration of the trials (18 months), and it is generally accepted that this form of treatment will require infusions for years. • The clinical efficacy of DMT is unfounded. Scientific opinion is divided as to whether modification of cerebral amyloid burden has clinical benefits on cognition or daily function. Further, there is no good reason to assume that a 23% relative difference on the continuous measure of cognitive decline observed in EMERGE — incidentally, not replicated in the identically designed ENGAGE trial3 — will translate to a relative difference in categorical transitions between mild cognitive impairment and mild or moderate dementia. Given this is the main driver of projected cost savings, assuming a 25% reduction in such transitions is unrealistic4 and, surprisingly, not subject to sensitivity analysis. • The adverse costs of DMTs are not modelled. It is not appropriate to model presumed clinical benefits of a hypothetical DMT without accounting for the personal, medical and social cost of their documented adverse effects, including cerebral oedema, brain haemorrhage, and falls.2,5 Given that the list price of any such DMT to the health system was also deliberately not modelled, NATSEM is encouraged to address these concerns in a revised report.

Michael Valenzuela

To the Editor: We congratulate Schutte and colleagues1 for their call to action for improved management of blood pressure in Australia, highlighting that 68% of people have uncontrolled high blood pressure. The burden of high blood pressure is unevenly distributed, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (hereafter referred to respectfully as Indigenous) people reportedly having a higher rate of high blood pressure than non‐Indigenous Australians in every age group.2 Reducing the prevalence of high blood pressure is one of the most important means of reducing serious circulatory diseases, which are among the leading causes of death for Indigenous Australians.3 Hence, we want to extend the call to action and report on what is happening in primary health care settings with the control of blood pressure for Indigenous people. During 2012–13, we analysed blood pressure screening and follow‐up for patients diagnosed with hypertension (n = 6523) from 123 primary health care centres across Australia using continuous quality improvement data from audits of adherence to best practice chronic illness care.4 Given there are no recently available data on follow‐up actions after an abnormal blood pressure reading at this geographic scale, and as blood pressure continues to be relatively uncontrolled, these data continue to provide unique insight. The data, aggregated at primary health care centre level (Box), tells a story of clinical inertia. Regular blood pressure screening was done well — centres on average completed blood pressure screening for about 90% of patients within the past 6 and 12 months. In this cohort, about 65% of patients recorded abnormal blood pressure (n = 4240). Most primary health care centres had documentation of a follow‐up plan for more than 70% of patients, but there was wide variation (range, 0–100%; Box). Dealing with the low levels of medication reviews and adjustments (mean, ~15%; range, 0–100%) is a vital early step in limiting the contribution of uncontrolled blood pressure to adverse health outcomes for Indigenous people. These data support the need for training on strategies to overcome clinical inertia, which was identified as a top priority by over 200 Indigenous primary health care practitioners, managers and policymakers.5 We add to the call for more attention on prevention of cardiovascular disease and suggest additional investment in evidence‐based interventions appropriate to Indigenous Australian culture and needs. The time for system‐wide action has come. Box – Boxplots showing a record of scheduled services received by patients with hypertension and follow‐up of abnormal findings within the last 12 months of audit (unless otherwise indicated) at primary health centres during 2012–13 x = mean value. More information on how to interpret box plots is available in Matthews et al.4

Jodie Bailie · Veronica Matthews · Ross S Bailie

To the Editor: Fraile Navarro and colleagues1 recently published 20 recommendations for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) in children and adolescents from the National COVID‐19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce. For the paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome (PIMS‐TS) recommendations, the Taskforce convened an expert advisory group.1 In the absence of clinical trials, the panel considered peer‐reviewed guidelines and cohort studies to formulate consensus recommendations.1 However, they deferred providing any guidance to help clinicians prevent thromboembolism. We suggest the Taskforce consider the same approach for paediatric anticoagulation guidance. COVID‐19 is associated with marked coagulation activation and hypercoagulability in children.2,3 Life‐threatening pulmonary embolus requiring thrombolysis has been encountered in Australian adolescents hospitalised with COVID‐19. A retrospective cohort study published in 2021 found that 2.1% of children hospitalised with symptomatic COVID‐19 infection and 6.5% of those with PIMS‐TS developed thrombosis.4 Thrombosis occurred more frequently in children aged 12years and over who had central lines, PIMS‐TS, or an underlying oncological diagnosis. A D‐dimer of more than five times the upper limit of normal was significantly associated with thrombosis.4 The authors refer to “paediatric guidelines published in the US”, which are published on behalf of the Pediatric/Neonatal Hemostasis and Thrombosis Subcommittee of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis; these adapt current consensus prophylaxis guidelines to include COVID‐19‐specific features.5 In deferring making specific recommendations, the authors suggested using existing local thromboprophylaxis guidelines. The Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne and the Sydney Children’s Hospital, Randwick have both independently developed COVID‐19‐specific thromboprophylaxis guidelines (that are very closely aligned),6,7 as have many other centres globally because previous local thromboprophylaxis guidelines are inadequate for COVID‐19‐associated thrombotic coagulopathy. The Melbourne/Sydney guidelines advise baseline coagulation testing in hospitalised children with COVID‐19, incorporating D‐dimer to assist risk assessment, twice‐daily enoxaparin and anti‐Xa monitoring/dose titration.6,7 These could be provided as supplemental material in these living guidelines. The COVID‐19 anticoagulation in Children–Thromboprophylaxis (COVAC‐TP) trial — a phase 2 single‐arm study looking at 40 children who will receive monitored, low dose, twice‐daily enoxaparin (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04354155) — will not change the level of evidence, so waiting for completion of this trial does not seem appropriate.

Gemma L Crighton · Anthea Greenway · Susan Russell

To the editor: Clinicians are faced with requests for mask exemptions but guidance remains limited. In keeping with the Australasian College of Dermatologists’ guidelines,1 we believe skin problems are rarely severe enough to warrant exemption. The Department of Health and Human Services states people with “a serious skin condition of the face” are eligible for mask exemption,2 but this statement is open to interpretation. Mask exemptions for skin conditions are provided by numerous clinicians and not limited to dermatologists. Regardless of immunisation status, cases that may warrant exemption include severe dermatitis with crusting or weeping; severe infections such as impetigo or eczema herpeticum; bullous dermatoses, ectodermal dysplasias and other rare conditions featuring facial skin fragility; and post‐surgical procedures involving grafts or flaps where masks may impede healing. In addition, treatments for actinic damage such as 5‐fluorouracil, imiquimod or photodynamic therapy may cause severe inflammation.3 We suggest if exemptions are warranted, duration should be minimised, which may be before resolution of the dermatoses (eg, 2weeks followed by a review). This is essential given masks have been key in reducing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) transmission.4 The development of an assessment pathway for facial dermatoses impeding mask use may be beneficial and should differentiate between health care workers, who wear fit‐tested masks, and the general public, guiding prompt treatment and follow‐up to facilitate a return to mask use. From our experience, facial masks may irritate the skin from pressure, sweating and humidity, and commonly aggravate underlying dermatoses, such as seborrheic dermatitis, acne or rosacea. Facial masks may rarely cause allergic contact dermatitis,5 and these cases should involve a contact dermatitis expert. Education regarding skin care is vital, in particular regular cleansing and reducing the number of products used which may aggravate acne. When utilising reusable masks, it is important to opt for an appropriate material such as light‐coloured cotton and maintain mask hygiene, which includes daily mask changes, regular washing, not sharing masks, and taking regular breaks from mask wearing. In summary, clinicians should remain vigilant when writing mask exemptions, aiming to minimise the duration by treating underlying skin problems and providing patient education.

Kajal Patel · Rosemary L Nixon

To the Editor: Larcombe and colleagues1 report a range of potentially harmful chemicals in locally purchased e‐liquids, highlighting the need for rigorous Australian standards and regulation of vaping liquids. However, the biological and clinical significance of these findings is unclear. Simply detecting the presence of a chemical with a potential risk has little meaning. The risk to human health depends on the level of exposure, under a fundamental principle of toxicology that “the dose makes the poison”.2 Apart from flavouring chemicals, most of the chemicals in the e‐liquids were at low or very low levels. Low doses of chemicals are ubiquitous in the environment, including arsenic in tap water and acrylamide in coffee.3 These cause little harm. To properly assess risk, the dose should be referenced to some standard, such as an established occupational or environmental exposure standard. No such comparison was made; therefore, no conclusions should be drawn. Nicotine was found at trace levels in six out of 65 samples. The authors imply that this has “implications for health and addiction”. However, nicotine was detected at a dose of 0.29 mg/L, which is around 1000 times lower than the lowest concentration of nicotine (3 mg/mL) in commercial e‐liquids and is not of any biological or clinical significance. Furthermore, as the authors note, predicting the risk to health should be based on the analysis of vapour rather than e‐liquid. This is a far more useful guide to the exposure of chemicals to the user. Most importantly, any risk should be compared with the risk from smoking. As frequent vaping is largely confined to smokers, minor harm from vaping is justified if it allows switching from the far more harmful behaviour of smoking.4 A Public Health England review found that most toxins responsible for health damage from smoking are absent in vapour and those that are present are at much lower levels (below 5% and mostly below 1%) than in tobacco smoke.5 It is disappointing that the authors declare no relevant disclosures when three of the four funding organisations have established antivaping positions (the Minderoo Foundation, Lung Foundation Australia, Cancer Council Western Australia). This should have been declared in the competing interests statement.

Colin P Mendelsohn · Alex D Wodak