The nurse practitioner (NP) role has existed for 50 years. During the past 10 years, a national effort to use NPs to the full extent of their education based on the 2008 Consensus Model for Advanced Practice Registered Nurse Regulation and the 2010 Institute of Medicine Report on the Future of Nursing continues to result in variable scopes of practice (SOP) between states. Subsequently, NPs have a lack of clarity on SOP because it relates to population foci and practice setting. Review and analysis of state-based statutes and rules with the current literature focused on NP SOP, including documents by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, was conducted. Clarification and understanding of SOP is essential for safe practice and optimum access to care. Inconsistent SOP regulation continues to exist between states, and NPs can be in employment situations that place them in a position to possibly breech their SOP. Although practice is not setting specific, NP licensure is based on NP education and certification that is competency based within population foci, and credentialing by employers should align with these parameters. Continuing to work toward a more common NP SOP between states and achievement of full practice authority means periodic reassessment of NP education and practice models. Practice mobility is essential for continued advancement of the NP profession and increased access to care by the public.

ImportanceGreater than 20% of cases and 0.4% of deaths from COVID-19 occur in children. Following demonstration of the safety and efficacy of the adjuvanted, recombinant spike protein vaccine NVX-CoV2373 in adults, the PREVENT-19 trial immediately expanded to adolescents.ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 in adolescents.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThe NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was evaluated in adolescents aged 12 to 17 years in an expansion of PREVENT-19, a phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled multicenter clinical trial in the US. Participants were enrolled from April 26 to June 5, 2021, and the study is ongoing. A blinded crossover was implemented after 2 months of safety follow-up to offer active vaccine to all participants. Key exclusion criteria included known previous laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or known immunosuppression. Of 2304 participants assessed for eligibility, 57 were excluded and 2247 were randomized.InterventionsParticipants were randomized 2:1 to 2 intramuscular injections of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo, 21 days apart.Main Outcomes and MeasuresSerologic noninferiority of neutralizing antibody responses compared with those in young adults (aged 18-25 years) in PREVENT-19, protective efficacy against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and assessment of reactogenicity and safety.ResultsAmong 2232 participants (1487 NVX-CoV2373 and 745 placebo recipients), the mean (SD) age was 13.8 (1.4) years, 1172 (52.5%) were male, 1660 (74.4%) were White individuals, and 359 (16.1%) had had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. After vaccination, the ratio of neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers in adolescents compared with those in young adults was 1.5 (95% CI, 1.3-1.7). Twenty mild COVID-19 cases occurred after a median of 64 (IQR, 57-69) days of follow-up, including 6 among NVX-CoV2373 recipients (incidence, 2.90 [95% CI, 1.31-6.46] cases per 100 person-years) and 14 among placebo recipients (incidence, 14.20 [95% CI, 8.42-23.93] cases per 100 person-years), yielding a vaccine efficacy of 79.5% (95% CI, 46.8%-92.1%). Vaccine efficacy for the Delta variant (the only viral variant identified by sequencing [n = 11]) was 82.0% (95% CI, 32.4%-95.2%). Reactogenicity was largely mild to moderate and transient, with a trend toward greater frequency after the second dose of NVX-CoV2373. Serious adverse events were rare and balanced between treatments. No adverse events led to study discontinuation.Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this randomized clinical trial indicate that NVX-CoV2373 is safe, immunogenic, and efficacious in preventing COVID-19, including the predominant Delta variant, in adolescents.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04611802

Most ADHD drugs prescribed for very young children are off-label, which is concerning owing to lack of safety and efficacy data in this vulnerable population.

Introduction: Health care providers in Washington State practice in a unique environment where both medical and recreational cannabis use are legal. Five types of health care providers can authorize medical cannabis. Statecertified medical cannabis consultants may advise patients in a cannabis retail store regarding use and consumption. Washington State's health care professionals' perspectives about medical cannabis can inform policy-makers nationwide who are navigating challenges posed by legalization of medical and recreational cannabis. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional mixed-mode survey using a 26-item questionnaire was administered to a random sample of actively licensed health care professionals legally permitted to provide medical cannabis authorizations in Washington State. We describe participant demographics and summarize responses to survey questions. We report comparisons across provider types using Fisher's exact tests with a level of significance of p < 0.01. Results: Among the 1440 health care professionals invited to participate in the study, 310 respondents met eligibility criteria (response rate 24%). Only 57 respondents (18.4%) indicated having ever issued a medical cannabis authorization. Among them, 6, all naturopaths, had provided more than 500. Over half (58%) reported that they did not feel they had the knowledge and skills necessary to provide authorizations. Depending on the condition, 29-93% of respondents correctly identified conditions that qualified a patient to receive a medical cannabis authorization. Very few knew that employers are not required to provide accommodations for medical cannabis. Health care professionals (64.8%) served as the most frequent source of information regarding cannabis risks and benefits. Over half (62%) strongly or somewhat agreed that the Drug Enforcement Agency should reschedule cannabis to make it legal at the federal level. Conclusion: A wide range of knowledge was exhibited within our sample of health care professionals regarding qualifying conditions for medical cannabis. As more states adopt comprehensive medical cannabis laws, health care professionals must be prepared to provide information to patients regarding the effects, risks, and benefits of cannabis. Standardized education could ensure that health care professionals are prepared to responsibly promote the use of cannabis when indicated for medically appropriate symptoms and conditions. A rational approach to medical cannabis is needed to assure that unforeseen consequences are mitigated.

Purpose We examined the impact on geographic distribution of medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD) in Oregon after the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) was implemented in February 2017 to include nurse practitioner (NP) prescribers. Methods We conducted interrupted time series analysis with linear regression on prescriptions dispensed for buprenorphine used for MOUD in the Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Database written by physician (MD/DO) and NP prescribers January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018. We analyzed total prescriptions by prescriber type and pharmacy ZIP Code using STATA 16.1. Findings From January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018, 420,765 eligible prescriptions were written by waivered MD/DO and/or NP prescribers. Prior to CARA, buprenorphine use was increasing steadily at 140 prescriptions per month (95% CI: 78‐201; P < .01). Following CARA, dispensing increased by 88 prescriptions per month (95% CI: 23‐152; P = .01). The absolute number increased in rural areas immediately after CARA implementation (368 prescriptions; 95% CI: 124‐613; P < .01). NP contribution to total buprenorphine prescribing increased significantly in both urban and rural areas (0.44% per month [95% CI: 0.30%‐0.57%; P < .01] and 0.74% per month [95% CI: 0.62%‐0.85%; P < .01]). The contribution of NPs had a particularly large impact for very rural (frontier) areas, where NPs provided 36% of all buprenorphine prescriptions by the end of 2018. Conclusion Changes in federal law regarding MOUD had a positive impact on both supply and geographic distribution in Oregon, particularly in frontier areas comprising 10 of 36 counties (27%).