User login
iPLEDGE allows at-home pregnancy tests during pandemic
tests to comply with the requirements of the iPLEDGE program during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to an update program posted on the iPLEDGE website.
The program’s other requirements – the prescription window and two forms of birth control – remain unchanged.
The change follows recent guidance from the Department of Health & Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration regarding accommodations for medical care and drugs subject to Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) in the midst of a public health emergency that requires most people to remain in their homes except for essential services.
Allowing females to take at-home pregnancy tests and communicate the results to physician according to their preference is “a game changer for the middle of a pandemic, obviously,” Neil Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, said in an interview. “These are patients who don’t need to spend time outside just to get pregnancy tests done. It makes it a lot easier.”
Dr. Goldberg is frustrated, however, that the accommodations have not been more widely publicized; he discovered the change incidentally when speaking to an iPLEDGE program representative to request a waiver for a patient who had taken her pregnancy test too early. The program had denied a similar request for a 15-year-old patient of his the previous week, despite the patient being abstinent and having been in shelter-in-place for several weeks.
“The size of your notice [on the website] should be proportionate to how important it is,” Dr. Goldberg said, and the small red box on the site is easy to miss. By contrast, asking anyone to leave their homes to go to a lab for a pregnancy test in the midst of a global pandemic so they can continue their medication would be putting patients at risk, he added.
The iPLEDGE program is designed in part to ensure unplanned pregnancies do not occur in females while taking the teratogenic acne drug. But the rules are onerous and difficult even during normal times, pointed out Hilary Baldwin, MD, medical director of the Acne Treatment and Research Center in New York City and past president of the American Acne and Rosacea Society.
Male patients taking isotretinoin must visit their physician every month to get a new no-refills prescription, but females must get a pregnancy test at a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified lab, which must then provide physical results to the prescribing physician. The doctor enters the negative pregnancy test and the two forms of birth control the patient is taking in the iPLEDGE program site.
Then the patient must take an online test at home to acknowledge they understand what it means to not get pregnant and enter the two forms of birth control they are using – which must match what the doctor enters – before the pharmacy can dispense the drug. The entire process must occur within 7 days or else the patient has to wait 19 days before starting the process over.
“We run a very tight schedule for girls. And every month, we would worry that something would interfere, a snow storm or something else, and that they wouldn’t be able to complete their objectives within the 7-day period,” Dr Baldwin said in an interview. “It was always difficult, and now with us not being able to see the patient and the patient not wanting to go to the lab, this became completely impossible.”
Until this change, some patients may not have been able to get their prescription for severe nodulocystic acne, which can cause physical and psychological scarring, and “postponing treatment increases the likelihood of scarring,” Dr. Baldwin pointed out.
Dr. Goldberg’s patients now take a pregnancy test at home and send him a photo of the negative test that he then inserts into their EMR.
According to a March 17 statement from HHS, potential penalties for HIPAA violations are waived for good-faith use of “everyday communication technologies,” such as Skype or FaceTime, for telehealth treatment or diagnostics. The change was intended to allow telehealth services to continue healthcare for practices that had not previously had secure telehealth technology established.
Despite the changes for at-home pregnancy tests for females and in-person visits for all patients, the program has not altered the 7-day prescription window or the requirement to have two forms of birth control.
With reports of a global condom shortage, Dr Baldwin said she has more concerns about her adult patients being able to find a required barrier method of birth control than about her adolescent patients.
“This is a unique opportunity for us to trust our teenage patients because they can’t leave the house,” Dr. Baldwin said. “I’m actually more worried about my adult women on the drug who are bored and cooped up in a house with their significant other.”
Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Goldberg had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Goldberg is a Dermatology News board member.
tests to comply with the requirements of the iPLEDGE program during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to an update program posted on the iPLEDGE website.
The program’s other requirements – the prescription window and two forms of birth control – remain unchanged.
The change follows recent guidance from the Department of Health & Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration regarding accommodations for medical care and drugs subject to Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) in the midst of a public health emergency that requires most people to remain in their homes except for essential services.
Allowing females to take at-home pregnancy tests and communicate the results to physician according to their preference is “a game changer for the middle of a pandemic, obviously,” Neil Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, said in an interview. “These are patients who don’t need to spend time outside just to get pregnancy tests done. It makes it a lot easier.”
Dr. Goldberg is frustrated, however, that the accommodations have not been more widely publicized; he discovered the change incidentally when speaking to an iPLEDGE program representative to request a waiver for a patient who had taken her pregnancy test too early. The program had denied a similar request for a 15-year-old patient of his the previous week, despite the patient being abstinent and having been in shelter-in-place for several weeks.
“The size of your notice [on the website] should be proportionate to how important it is,” Dr. Goldberg said, and the small red box on the site is easy to miss. By contrast, asking anyone to leave their homes to go to a lab for a pregnancy test in the midst of a global pandemic so they can continue their medication would be putting patients at risk, he added.
The iPLEDGE program is designed in part to ensure unplanned pregnancies do not occur in females while taking the teratogenic acne drug. But the rules are onerous and difficult even during normal times, pointed out Hilary Baldwin, MD, medical director of the Acne Treatment and Research Center in New York City and past president of the American Acne and Rosacea Society.
Male patients taking isotretinoin must visit their physician every month to get a new no-refills prescription, but females must get a pregnancy test at a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified lab, which must then provide physical results to the prescribing physician. The doctor enters the negative pregnancy test and the two forms of birth control the patient is taking in the iPLEDGE program site.
Then the patient must take an online test at home to acknowledge they understand what it means to not get pregnant and enter the two forms of birth control they are using – which must match what the doctor enters – before the pharmacy can dispense the drug. The entire process must occur within 7 days or else the patient has to wait 19 days before starting the process over.
“We run a very tight schedule for girls. And every month, we would worry that something would interfere, a snow storm or something else, and that they wouldn’t be able to complete their objectives within the 7-day period,” Dr Baldwin said in an interview. “It was always difficult, and now with us not being able to see the patient and the patient not wanting to go to the lab, this became completely impossible.”
Until this change, some patients may not have been able to get their prescription for severe nodulocystic acne, which can cause physical and psychological scarring, and “postponing treatment increases the likelihood of scarring,” Dr. Baldwin pointed out.
Dr. Goldberg’s patients now take a pregnancy test at home and send him a photo of the negative test that he then inserts into their EMR.
According to a March 17 statement from HHS, potential penalties for HIPAA violations are waived for good-faith use of “everyday communication technologies,” such as Skype or FaceTime, for telehealth treatment or diagnostics. The change was intended to allow telehealth services to continue healthcare for practices that had not previously had secure telehealth technology established.
Despite the changes for at-home pregnancy tests for females and in-person visits for all patients, the program has not altered the 7-day prescription window or the requirement to have two forms of birth control.
With reports of a global condom shortage, Dr Baldwin said she has more concerns about her adult patients being able to find a required barrier method of birth control than about her adolescent patients.
“This is a unique opportunity for us to trust our teenage patients because they can’t leave the house,” Dr. Baldwin said. “I’m actually more worried about my adult women on the drug who are bored and cooped up in a house with their significant other.”
Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Goldberg had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Goldberg is a Dermatology News board member.
tests to comply with the requirements of the iPLEDGE program during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to an update program posted on the iPLEDGE website.
The program’s other requirements – the prescription window and two forms of birth control – remain unchanged.
The change follows recent guidance from the Department of Health & Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration regarding accommodations for medical care and drugs subject to Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) in the midst of a public health emergency that requires most people to remain in their homes except for essential services.
Allowing females to take at-home pregnancy tests and communicate the results to physician according to their preference is “a game changer for the middle of a pandemic, obviously,” Neil Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, said in an interview. “These are patients who don’t need to spend time outside just to get pregnancy tests done. It makes it a lot easier.”
Dr. Goldberg is frustrated, however, that the accommodations have not been more widely publicized; he discovered the change incidentally when speaking to an iPLEDGE program representative to request a waiver for a patient who had taken her pregnancy test too early. The program had denied a similar request for a 15-year-old patient of his the previous week, despite the patient being abstinent and having been in shelter-in-place for several weeks.
“The size of your notice [on the website] should be proportionate to how important it is,” Dr. Goldberg said, and the small red box on the site is easy to miss. By contrast, asking anyone to leave their homes to go to a lab for a pregnancy test in the midst of a global pandemic so they can continue their medication would be putting patients at risk, he added.
The iPLEDGE program is designed in part to ensure unplanned pregnancies do not occur in females while taking the teratogenic acne drug. But the rules are onerous and difficult even during normal times, pointed out Hilary Baldwin, MD, medical director of the Acne Treatment and Research Center in New York City and past president of the American Acne and Rosacea Society.
Male patients taking isotretinoin must visit their physician every month to get a new no-refills prescription, but females must get a pregnancy test at a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified lab, which must then provide physical results to the prescribing physician. The doctor enters the negative pregnancy test and the two forms of birth control the patient is taking in the iPLEDGE program site.
Then the patient must take an online test at home to acknowledge they understand what it means to not get pregnant and enter the two forms of birth control they are using – which must match what the doctor enters – before the pharmacy can dispense the drug. The entire process must occur within 7 days or else the patient has to wait 19 days before starting the process over.
“We run a very tight schedule for girls. And every month, we would worry that something would interfere, a snow storm or something else, and that they wouldn’t be able to complete their objectives within the 7-day period,” Dr Baldwin said in an interview. “It was always difficult, and now with us not being able to see the patient and the patient not wanting to go to the lab, this became completely impossible.”
Until this change, some patients may not have been able to get their prescription for severe nodulocystic acne, which can cause physical and psychological scarring, and “postponing treatment increases the likelihood of scarring,” Dr. Baldwin pointed out.
Dr. Goldberg’s patients now take a pregnancy test at home and send him a photo of the negative test that he then inserts into their EMR.
According to a March 17 statement from HHS, potential penalties for HIPAA violations are waived for good-faith use of “everyday communication technologies,” such as Skype or FaceTime, for telehealth treatment or diagnostics. The change was intended to allow telehealth services to continue healthcare for practices that had not previously had secure telehealth technology established.
Despite the changes for at-home pregnancy tests for females and in-person visits for all patients, the program has not altered the 7-day prescription window or the requirement to have two forms of birth control.
With reports of a global condom shortage, Dr Baldwin said she has more concerns about her adult patients being able to find a required barrier method of birth control than about her adolescent patients.
“This is a unique opportunity for us to trust our teenage patients because they can’t leave the house,” Dr. Baldwin said. “I’m actually more worried about my adult women on the drug who are bored and cooped up in a house with their significant other.”
Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Goldberg had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Goldberg is a Dermatology News board member.
Liraglutide gives adolescents with obesity an edge in managing weight loss
Prescribing liraglutide plus lifestyle therapy for adolescents with obesity resulted in greater weight loss and greater reduction in body mass index, compared with those prescribed lifestyle therapy alone, according to findings from a new study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Liraglutide with lifestyle therapy also “compared favorably in terms of [body mass index] reduction,” compared with other pediatric weight-management programs in the United States and with use of orlistat, wrote Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues. The study abstract was presented during a virtual news conference held by The Endocrine Society. It had been slated for presentation during ENDO 2020, the society’s annual meeting, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The study included adolescents aged 12-17 years, who had obesity (BMI, ≥30 kg/m2) and had responded poorly to recommendations involving lifestyle therapy only, as judged by the site investigator and documented in the participant’s medical records. The adolescents participated at one of five sites in Belgium, Mexico, Russia, Sweden, and the United States.
In the randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, 125 participants received 3 mg liraglutide, and 126 received placebo for 56 weeks, during which both groups received lifestyle therapy, “defined as counseling about healthy nutrition and physical activity for weight loss,” the authors wrote.
After 12-weeks of run-in, the treatment period lasted 56 weeks, with a follow-up 26 weeks after treatment ended. The liraglutide group retained 80.8% of its participants, and the placebo group, 79.4%.
At week 56, there were no significant differences between the groups in blood pressure, fasting lipids, fasting plasma glucose, or hemoglobin A1c, the authors noted.
However, in the liraglutide group, 43.3% of participants lost at least 5% of their BMI, compared with 18.7% in the control group. Similarly, 26.1% of those in the liraglutide group had a BMI reduction of at least 10%, compared with 8.1% in the control group.
Participants in the liraglutide group also saw a greater reduction in BMI, compared with those in the placebo group (estimated difference, 4.64 percentage points), and those taking liraglutide lost 9.9 pounds (4.5 kg) more than those receiving placebo – a relative reduction of 5%. The authors noted that a weight loss of 3%-5% “significantly improves some health-related outcomes in adults.”
In addition, the liraglutide group had a BMI standard-deviation score that was 0.22 lower than that in the placebo group (P = .002), but after the participants discontinued with the trial, “a greater increase in the BMI standard-deviation score was observed with liraglutide than with placebo (0.15),” the authors reported.
“Although evidence in children is limited, a change in BMI standard-deviation score of at least 0.20 has been suggested to be clinically meaningful,” they wrote. “Some studies indicate that even temporary weight loss may have long-term benefits, but the extent to which this applies in adolescents and the extent to which long-term adherence to pharmacotherapy can be expected are unknown.”
The researchers added that the reduction in standard-deviation score seen in this study, of 0.22, was a bigger reduction than that seen in lifestyle therapy trials from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and from an overview of six Cochrane reviews. Their trial also, however, had a fairly high adherence rate, over 80%.
No notable differences in cardiometabolic markers or in quality of life showed up between the liraglutide and placebo groups. The heterogeneous treatment response in this and past studies suggests the need for future trials to “characterize predictors of treatment response to identify patients who would benefit the most from treatment,” the authors wrote.
About twice as many participants taking liraglutide experienced gastrointestinal adverse events compared with those receiving placebo (64.8% vs. 36.5%, respectively). Those symptoms, a known side effect of this drug type, included nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea and occurred primarily during escalation of the drug dose before then dropping in frequency. Still, the authors note that the high rate of gastrointestinal effects “suggests that this treatment may not be suitable for all patients.”
None of the adolescents receiving the placebo stopped treatment, but 10.4% of those taking liraglutide discontinued. One participant in the liraglutide group died by suicide, but the death was determined to be unrelated to the therapy.
Although the 0.22 reduction in the BMI standard-deviation score was for the intent-to-treat population, the authors calculated that the difference would have been 0.26 “if all participants had adhered to the treatment throughout the trial.”
Novo Nordisk funded the research. Several of the authors reported that they are employees of the company.
The abstract will also be published in a special supplemental issue of the Journal of the Endocrine Society. In addition to a series of news conferences on March 30-31, the society will ost ENDO Online 2020 during June 8-22, which will present programming for clinicians and researchers.
Source: Kelly AS et al. NEJM. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1916038.
Prescribing liraglutide plus lifestyle therapy for adolescents with obesity resulted in greater weight loss and greater reduction in body mass index, compared with those prescribed lifestyle therapy alone, according to findings from a new study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Liraglutide with lifestyle therapy also “compared favorably in terms of [body mass index] reduction,” compared with other pediatric weight-management programs in the United States and with use of orlistat, wrote Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues. The study abstract was presented during a virtual news conference held by The Endocrine Society. It had been slated for presentation during ENDO 2020, the society’s annual meeting, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The study included adolescents aged 12-17 years, who had obesity (BMI, ≥30 kg/m2) and had responded poorly to recommendations involving lifestyle therapy only, as judged by the site investigator and documented in the participant’s medical records. The adolescents participated at one of five sites in Belgium, Mexico, Russia, Sweden, and the United States.
In the randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, 125 participants received 3 mg liraglutide, and 126 received placebo for 56 weeks, during which both groups received lifestyle therapy, “defined as counseling about healthy nutrition and physical activity for weight loss,” the authors wrote.
After 12-weeks of run-in, the treatment period lasted 56 weeks, with a follow-up 26 weeks after treatment ended. The liraglutide group retained 80.8% of its participants, and the placebo group, 79.4%.
At week 56, there were no significant differences between the groups in blood pressure, fasting lipids, fasting plasma glucose, or hemoglobin A1c, the authors noted.
However, in the liraglutide group, 43.3% of participants lost at least 5% of their BMI, compared with 18.7% in the control group. Similarly, 26.1% of those in the liraglutide group had a BMI reduction of at least 10%, compared with 8.1% in the control group.
Participants in the liraglutide group also saw a greater reduction in BMI, compared with those in the placebo group (estimated difference, 4.64 percentage points), and those taking liraglutide lost 9.9 pounds (4.5 kg) more than those receiving placebo – a relative reduction of 5%. The authors noted that a weight loss of 3%-5% “significantly improves some health-related outcomes in adults.”
In addition, the liraglutide group had a BMI standard-deviation score that was 0.22 lower than that in the placebo group (P = .002), but after the participants discontinued with the trial, “a greater increase in the BMI standard-deviation score was observed with liraglutide than with placebo (0.15),” the authors reported.
“Although evidence in children is limited, a change in BMI standard-deviation score of at least 0.20 has been suggested to be clinically meaningful,” they wrote. “Some studies indicate that even temporary weight loss may have long-term benefits, but the extent to which this applies in adolescents and the extent to which long-term adherence to pharmacotherapy can be expected are unknown.”
The researchers added that the reduction in standard-deviation score seen in this study, of 0.22, was a bigger reduction than that seen in lifestyle therapy trials from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and from an overview of six Cochrane reviews. Their trial also, however, had a fairly high adherence rate, over 80%.
No notable differences in cardiometabolic markers or in quality of life showed up between the liraglutide and placebo groups. The heterogeneous treatment response in this and past studies suggests the need for future trials to “characterize predictors of treatment response to identify patients who would benefit the most from treatment,” the authors wrote.
About twice as many participants taking liraglutide experienced gastrointestinal adverse events compared with those receiving placebo (64.8% vs. 36.5%, respectively). Those symptoms, a known side effect of this drug type, included nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea and occurred primarily during escalation of the drug dose before then dropping in frequency. Still, the authors note that the high rate of gastrointestinal effects “suggests that this treatment may not be suitable for all patients.”
None of the adolescents receiving the placebo stopped treatment, but 10.4% of those taking liraglutide discontinued. One participant in the liraglutide group died by suicide, but the death was determined to be unrelated to the therapy.
Although the 0.22 reduction in the BMI standard-deviation score was for the intent-to-treat population, the authors calculated that the difference would have been 0.26 “if all participants had adhered to the treatment throughout the trial.”
Novo Nordisk funded the research. Several of the authors reported that they are employees of the company.
The abstract will also be published in a special supplemental issue of the Journal of the Endocrine Society. In addition to a series of news conferences on March 30-31, the society will ost ENDO Online 2020 during June 8-22, which will present programming for clinicians and researchers.
Source: Kelly AS et al. NEJM. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1916038.
Prescribing liraglutide plus lifestyle therapy for adolescents with obesity resulted in greater weight loss and greater reduction in body mass index, compared with those prescribed lifestyle therapy alone, according to findings from a new study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Liraglutide with lifestyle therapy also “compared favorably in terms of [body mass index] reduction,” compared with other pediatric weight-management programs in the United States and with use of orlistat, wrote Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues. The study abstract was presented during a virtual news conference held by The Endocrine Society. It had been slated for presentation during ENDO 2020, the society’s annual meeting, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The study included adolescents aged 12-17 years, who had obesity (BMI, ≥30 kg/m2) and had responded poorly to recommendations involving lifestyle therapy only, as judged by the site investigator and documented in the participant’s medical records. The adolescents participated at one of five sites in Belgium, Mexico, Russia, Sweden, and the United States.
In the randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, 125 participants received 3 mg liraglutide, and 126 received placebo for 56 weeks, during which both groups received lifestyle therapy, “defined as counseling about healthy nutrition and physical activity for weight loss,” the authors wrote.
After 12-weeks of run-in, the treatment period lasted 56 weeks, with a follow-up 26 weeks after treatment ended. The liraglutide group retained 80.8% of its participants, and the placebo group, 79.4%.
At week 56, there were no significant differences between the groups in blood pressure, fasting lipids, fasting plasma glucose, or hemoglobin A1c, the authors noted.
However, in the liraglutide group, 43.3% of participants lost at least 5% of their BMI, compared with 18.7% in the control group. Similarly, 26.1% of those in the liraglutide group had a BMI reduction of at least 10%, compared with 8.1% in the control group.
Participants in the liraglutide group also saw a greater reduction in BMI, compared with those in the placebo group (estimated difference, 4.64 percentage points), and those taking liraglutide lost 9.9 pounds (4.5 kg) more than those receiving placebo – a relative reduction of 5%. The authors noted that a weight loss of 3%-5% “significantly improves some health-related outcomes in adults.”
In addition, the liraglutide group had a BMI standard-deviation score that was 0.22 lower than that in the placebo group (P = .002), but after the participants discontinued with the trial, “a greater increase in the BMI standard-deviation score was observed with liraglutide than with placebo (0.15),” the authors reported.
“Although evidence in children is limited, a change in BMI standard-deviation score of at least 0.20 has been suggested to be clinically meaningful,” they wrote. “Some studies indicate that even temporary weight loss may have long-term benefits, but the extent to which this applies in adolescents and the extent to which long-term adherence to pharmacotherapy can be expected are unknown.”
The researchers added that the reduction in standard-deviation score seen in this study, of 0.22, was a bigger reduction than that seen in lifestyle therapy trials from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and from an overview of six Cochrane reviews. Their trial also, however, had a fairly high adherence rate, over 80%.
No notable differences in cardiometabolic markers or in quality of life showed up between the liraglutide and placebo groups. The heterogeneous treatment response in this and past studies suggests the need for future trials to “characterize predictors of treatment response to identify patients who would benefit the most from treatment,” the authors wrote.
About twice as many participants taking liraglutide experienced gastrointestinal adverse events compared with those receiving placebo (64.8% vs. 36.5%, respectively). Those symptoms, a known side effect of this drug type, included nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea and occurred primarily during escalation of the drug dose before then dropping in frequency. Still, the authors note that the high rate of gastrointestinal effects “suggests that this treatment may not be suitable for all patients.”
None of the adolescents receiving the placebo stopped treatment, but 10.4% of those taking liraglutide discontinued. One participant in the liraglutide group died by suicide, but the death was determined to be unrelated to the therapy.
Although the 0.22 reduction in the BMI standard-deviation score was for the intent-to-treat population, the authors calculated that the difference would have been 0.26 “if all participants had adhered to the treatment throughout the trial.”
Novo Nordisk funded the research. Several of the authors reported that they are employees of the company.
The abstract will also be published in a special supplemental issue of the Journal of the Endocrine Society. In addition to a series of news conferences on March 30-31, the society will ost ENDO Online 2020 during June 8-22, which will present programming for clinicians and researchers.
Source: Kelly AS et al. NEJM. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1916038.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
PARP inhibitors not cost effective for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer
For patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer with BRCA1/2 mutations, third- or fourth-line therapy with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors is less cost effective than non–platinum-based chemotherapy or bevacizumab-containing regimens, according to a study published in Gynecologic Oncology.
Compared with PARP inhibitors, intravenous chemotherapy regimens tend to produce lower response rates and shorter median progression-free survival (PFS) in this difficult-to-treat population, according to study author Juliet E. Wolford, MD, of the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues.
PARP inhibitors also have the advantages of oral administration and being well tolerated, the researchers noted. However, they found the expense of PARP inhibitors remains substantially greater per month of PFS, even after accounting for the costs of infusion and toxicity management related to chemotherapy.
“We initially wanted to do this study because we suspected that, when including the costs of infusions and costs of managing toxicities, even though the PARP [inhibitors] were more expensive, they would ultimately be more cost effective because they were well tolerated, oral, and more effective,” Dr. Wolford said in an interview. “Surprisingly, the high costs of the PARP [inhibitors] outweighs any other factors so much so that the costs of receiving infusions or managing the adverse events becomes negligible.”
Dr. Wolford and colleagues developed a model using median PFS and toxicity data from regulatory trials to show patient response, complications (hematologic and nonhematologic), progression, and death.
The researchers compared olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib individually to non–platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and to regimens containing bevacizumab. The team then estimated the costs of intravenous drugs, infusions, toxicity management, and supportive care, based on 2017 Medicare data.
The cost of non–platinum-based intravenous chemotherapy was $6,412 per quality-adjusted month of PFS, a little more than half the cost of bevacizumab-containing regimens, which was $12,187 per month of PFS.
The cost of PARP inhibitors was much higher: $18,970 per month of PFS for niraparib, $16,637 per month of PFS for rucaparib, and $16,327 per month of PFS for olaparib.
“An interesting, albeit not unexpected, phenomenon we observed in our analyses was that, with the relatively higher response rates and/or duration of response associated with PARP [inhibitor] treatment, higher drug costs are incurred,” Dr. Wolford and colleagues wrote.
“The longer patients remain progression free, the longer they remain on treatment and accumulate treatment-related cost,” the authors wrote, noting that complete responses are rare during recurrence treatment, so patients tend to receive salvage therapy until their disease progresses.
However, Dr. Wolford pointed out that using a model requires making assumptions and that “clinical decisions are not derived from a simulation.
“This type of simulation can facilitate the recognition of the financial burden the use of these novel treatments can place on our patients but, more importantly, can highlight the importance of identifying predictive biomarkers,” she said. “We need to be able to distinguish those patients who will benefit the most from the treatment in order to circumvent patients from experiencing financial toxicity from a therapy they will not derive benefit from.”
In their paper, Dr. Wolford and colleagues also pointed out that the new drugs’ cost-effectiveness could substantially improve with minimal reductions in cost, according to many models.
“Such reductions to improve the affordability of many novel molecules can be achieved through mechanisms which result in more widespread use and increased awareness and accessibility of the targeted agent in clinical practice,” the authors wrote.
Further, this study focused on platinum-resistant patients, who are particularly difficult to treat. Expanding the use of PARP inhibitors or identifying the most clinically meaningful uses of them could improve their cost-effectiveness, including possibly using them earlier in the disease course, the authors noted.
“We know from SOLO-1, PRIMA, and PAOLA-1 studies that using the PARP [inhibitors] as frontline maintenance therapy can have a significant benefit, so likely the trend will be to use the PARP [inhibitors] earlier in the disease course and utilizing the antiangiogenic therapy for recurrences when patients begin to develop platinum resistance,” Dr. Wolford said. “It is important to note, however, that, for the frontline trials, we only have PFS data, as the overall survival data is not yet mature.”
The high current costs of PARP inhibitors also follow a common trend with new oncologic agents, Dr. Wolford noted. “When they are first introduced, the high costs are reflective of the high developmental costs. As use of the novel therapies becomes more pervasive, with the approval of additional indications, the costs will eventually decrease over time.”
Dr. Wolford and colleagues did not report any external funding for this study. Some authors disclosed relationships with a range of pharmaceutical, device, and cancer-related businesses.
SOURCE: Wolford JE et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Mar 13. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.02.030.
For patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer with BRCA1/2 mutations, third- or fourth-line therapy with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors is less cost effective than non–platinum-based chemotherapy or bevacizumab-containing regimens, according to a study published in Gynecologic Oncology.
Compared with PARP inhibitors, intravenous chemotherapy regimens tend to produce lower response rates and shorter median progression-free survival (PFS) in this difficult-to-treat population, according to study author Juliet E. Wolford, MD, of the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues.
PARP inhibitors also have the advantages of oral administration and being well tolerated, the researchers noted. However, they found the expense of PARP inhibitors remains substantially greater per month of PFS, even after accounting for the costs of infusion and toxicity management related to chemotherapy.
“We initially wanted to do this study because we suspected that, when including the costs of infusions and costs of managing toxicities, even though the PARP [inhibitors] were more expensive, they would ultimately be more cost effective because they were well tolerated, oral, and more effective,” Dr. Wolford said in an interview. “Surprisingly, the high costs of the PARP [inhibitors] outweighs any other factors so much so that the costs of receiving infusions or managing the adverse events becomes negligible.”
Dr. Wolford and colleagues developed a model using median PFS and toxicity data from regulatory trials to show patient response, complications (hematologic and nonhematologic), progression, and death.
The researchers compared olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib individually to non–platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and to regimens containing bevacizumab. The team then estimated the costs of intravenous drugs, infusions, toxicity management, and supportive care, based on 2017 Medicare data.
The cost of non–platinum-based intravenous chemotherapy was $6,412 per quality-adjusted month of PFS, a little more than half the cost of bevacizumab-containing regimens, which was $12,187 per month of PFS.
The cost of PARP inhibitors was much higher: $18,970 per month of PFS for niraparib, $16,637 per month of PFS for rucaparib, and $16,327 per month of PFS for olaparib.
“An interesting, albeit not unexpected, phenomenon we observed in our analyses was that, with the relatively higher response rates and/or duration of response associated with PARP [inhibitor] treatment, higher drug costs are incurred,” Dr. Wolford and colleagues wrote.
“The longer patients remain progression free, the longer they remain on treatment and accumulate treatment-related cost,” the authors wrote, noting that complete responses are rare during recurrence treatment, so patients tend to receive salvage therapy until their disease progresses.
However, Dr. Wolford pointed out that using a model requires making assumptions and that “clinical decisions are not derived from a simulation.
“This type of simulation can facilitate the recognition of the financial burden the use of these novel treatments can place on our patients but, more importantly, can highlight the importance of identifying predictive biomarkers,” she said. “We need to be able to distinguish those patients who will benefit the most from the treatment in order to circumvent patients from experiencing financial toxicity from a therapy they will not derive benefit from.”
In their paper, Dr. Wolford and colleagues also pointed out that the new drugs’ cost-effectiveness could substantially improve with minimal reductions in cost, according to many models.
“Such reductions to improve the affordability of many novel molecules can be achieved through mechanisms which result in more widespread use and increased awareness and accessibility of the targeted agent in clinical practice,” the authors wrote.
Further, this study focused on platinum-resistant patients, who are particularly difficult to treat. Expanding the use of PARP inhibitors or identifying the most clinically meaningful uses of them could improve their cost-effectiveness, including possibly using them earlier in the disease course, the authors noted.
“We know from SOLO-1, PRIMA, and PAOLA-1 studies that using the PARP [inhibitors] as frontline maintenance therapy can have a significant benefit, so likely the trend will be to use the PARP [inhibitors] earlier in the disease course and utilizing the antiangiogenic therapy for recurrences when patients begin to develop platinum resistance,” Dr. Wolford said. “It is important to note, however, that, for the frontline trials, we only have PFS data, as the overall survival data is not yet mature.”
The high current costs of PARP inhibitors also follow a common trend with new oncologic agents, Dr. Wolford noted. “When they are first introduced, the high costs are reflective of the high developmental costs. As use of the novel therapies becomes more pervasive, with the approval of additional indications, the costs will eventually decrease over time.”
Dr. Wolford and colleagues did not report any external funding for this study. Some authors disclosed relationships with a range of pharmaceutical, device, and cancer-related businesses.
SOURCE: Wolford JE et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Mar 13. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.02.030.
For patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer with BRCA1/2 mutations, third- or fourth-line therapy with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors is less cost effective than non–platinum-based chemotherapy or bevacizumab-containing regimens, according to a study published in Gynecologic Oncology.
Compared with PARP inhibitors, intravenous chemotherapy regimens tend to produce lower response rates and shorter median progression-free survival (PFS) in this difficult-to-treat population, according to study author Juliet E. Wolford, MD, of the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues.
PARP inhibitors also have the advantages of oral administration and being well tolerated, the researchers noted. However, they found the expense of PARP inhibitors remains substantially greater per month of PFS, even after accounting for the costs of infusion and toxicity management related to chemotherapy.
“We initially wanted to do this study because we suspected that, when including the costs of infusions and costs of managing toxicities, even though the PARP [inhibitors] were more expensive, they would ultimately be more cost effective because they were well tolerated, oral, and more effective,” Dr. Wolford said in an interview. “Surprisingly, the high costs of the PARP [inhibitors] outweighs any other factors so much so that the costs of receiving infusions or managing the adverse events becomes negligible.”
Dr. Wolford and colleagues developed a model using median PFS and toxicity data from regulatory trials to show patient response, complications (hematologic and nonhematologic), progression, and death.
The researchers compared olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib individually to non–platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and to regimens containing bevacizumab. The team then estimated the costs of intravenous drugs, infusions, toxicity management, and supportive care, based on 2017 Medicare data.
The cost of non–platinum-based intravenous chemotherapy was $6,412 per quality-adjusted month of PFS, a little more than half the cost of bevacizumab-containing regimens, which was $12,187 per month of PFS.
The cost of PARP inhibitors was much higher: $18,970 per month of PFS for niraparib, $16,637 per month of PFS for rucaparib, and $16,327 per month of PFS for olaparib.
“An interesting, albeit not unexpected, phenomenon we observed in our analyses was that, with the relatively higher response rates and/or duration of response associated with PARP [inhibitor] treatment, higher drug costs are incurred,” Dr. Wolford and colleagues wrote.
“The longer patients remain progression free, the longer they remain on treatment and accumulate treatment-related cost,” the authors wrote, noting that complete responses are rare during recurrence treatment, so patients tend to receive salvage therapy until their disease progresses.
However, Dr. Wolford pointed out that using a model requires making assumptions and that “clinical decisions are not derived from a simulation.
“This type of simulation can facilitate the recognition of the financial burden the use of these novel treatments can place on our patients but, more importantly, can highlight the importance of identifying predictive biomarkers,” she said. “We need to be able to distinguish those patients who will benefit the most from the treatment in order to circumvent patients from experiencing financial toxicity from a therapy they will not derive benefit from.”
In their paper, Dr. Wolford and colleagues also pointed out that the new drugs’ cost-effectiveness could substantially improve with minimal reductions in cost, according to many models.
“Such reductions to improve the affordability of many novel molecules can be achieved through mechanisms which result in more widespread use and increased awareness and accessibility of the targeted agent in clinical practice,” the authors wrote.
Further, this study focused on platinum-resistant patients, who are particularly difficult to treat. Expanding the use of PARP inhibitors or identifying the most clinically meaningful uses of them could improve their cost-effectiveness, including possibly using them earlier in the disease course, the authors noted.
“We know from SOLO-1, PRIMA, and PAOLA-1 studies that using the PARP [inhibitors] as frontline maintenance therapy can have a significant benefit, so likely the trend will be to use the PARP [inhibitors] earlier in the disease course and utilizing the antiangiogenic therapy for recurrences when patients begin to develop platinum resistance,” Dr. Wolford said. “It is important to note, however, that, for the frontline trials, we only have PFS data, as the overall survival data is not yet mature.”
The high current costs of PARP inhibitors also follow a common trend with new oncologic agents, Dr. Wolford noted. “When they are first introduced, the high costs are reflective of the high developmental costs. As use of the novel therapies becomes more pervasive, with the approval of additional indications, the costs will eventually decrease over time.”
Dr. Wolford and colleagues did not report any external funding for this study. Some authors disclosed relationships with a range of pharmaceutical, device, and cancer-related businesses.
SOURCE: Wolford JE et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Mar 13. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.02.030.
FROM GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
Sexual-minority youth at greater risk for physical, sexual violence
U.S. high school students who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning – “sexual minorities” – faced twice the risk of physical or sexual assault in the past year compared with their heterosexual peers, according to findings reported in a research letter.
Sexual-minority females were particularly more likely to experience physical violence while sexual-minority boys had a fourfold increased risk of sexual violence.
“The results of our study suggest the existence of a crisis of violence against sexual minority adolescents,” Theodore L. Caputi, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues reported in JAMA Pediatrics. “Given the substantial physical and emotional consequences of violence for those subjected to it and the large existing health disparities among sexual minority adolescents, addressing both physical and sexual violence against sexual minority adolescents should become a public health priority.”
Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said he was not surprised by the findings because adolescents who may feel more vulnerable relative to their peers are likely to be more of a target. They may not have the supports they need, he said, which will affect their resiliency and their ability to push back.
“These patients are at ages where their parents might be among their supporters,” Dr. Safer said in an interview. “People in their circle may not be aware of their circumstances.”
He emphasized the need for physicians to ensure their offices are safe places for sexual-minority youth to talk to adolescent patients about their gender and sexual identity as well as any history of victimization, and to involve parents in being an ally of their child.
The researchers analyzed data from the nationally representative 2015 and 2017 National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys administered to public and private high school students in grades 9-12 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 28,811 total respondents represented a 60% response rate both years.
After indicating their sex as male or female and their sexual orientation, respondents reported whether, in the past year, they had experienced a physical fight at school, a physical fight anywhere, or physical violence from a romantic partner. They also reported whether they had been sexually assaulted in the past year by a romantic partner or ever been forced to have intercourse. The 2017 survey included an additional question about sexual assault by anyone in the past year.
Most youth (87%) identified themselves as heterosexual while 2% were gay/lesbian, 7% were bisexual, and 4% were unsure. Sexual minorities reported a higher prevalence of all forms of violence and assault, compared with their heterosexual counterparts. Although risk of a physical fight in the past year differed by a small amount (28% of sexual-minority youth vs. 22% of heterosexual youth), the gap was considerably greater for risk of physical violence by a romantic partner (12% of sexual-minority youth vs. 5% of heterosexual youth).
More than three times as many sexual-minority adolescents (18%) as heterosexual adolescents (5%) said they had ever been forced to have intercourse, and a similarly high proportion of sexual-minority students (21%) had been sexually assaulted in the past year, compared with heterosexual students (8%). After accounting for survey year, sex, age, race/ethnicity, English language proficiency, and grade level, youth who identified as anything other than heterosexual were about twice as likely as their heterosexual counterparts to have experienced physical or sexual violence, including physical violence by a romantic partner (adjusted risk ratio, 1.97) or sexual assault by anyone (aRR, 2.10), in the past year. The risk of physical violence by a romantic partner or sexual assault by anyone was even greater for bisexual youth (aRR, 2.22 and aRR, 2.36, respectively).
The increased likelihood of physical violence and sexual violence differed by sex. Girls who identified as lesbian, bisexual, or questioning were more likely than heterosexual girls to have been in a fight at school or anywhere else (aRR, 1.91 and aRR, 1.74, respectively). Boys who were gay, bisexual, or questioning, meanwhile, were over four times more likely than heterosexual boys to have had forced intercourse or any kind of sexual assault (aRR, 4.70 and aRR, 4.64, respectively).
These findings point to the need for physicians to be “specifically talking to youth about gender identity and sexual orientation. Validating what kids are feeling is important,” Dr. Safer said in an interview.
Key to that process is making sure the physician’s office feels like a safe place for LGBTQ youth to have these kinds of conversations. “Most primary care and pediatric and adolescent care practices are not feeling well equipped to take care of these kids and are not necessarily serving as a good resource for these kids,” Dr. Safer said.
It’s also important for physicians to ask youth about potential violence or abuse they have experienced, including depression and sequelae from lack of support, for which gender- and sexual-minority youth are at greater risk, he said. Finally, doctors need to engage parents in the conversation.
“As a medical professional, you need to be asking the questions and really be out there as an ally, especially for pediatric and adolescent patients, and you need to be helping the parents of your patients be allies too,” Dr. Safer said.
The study was limited by having a binary question only about respondent’s sex and no data collection about transgender youth. The study’s cross-sectional design also precludes the ability to claim causation about any of the associations.
The research was funded by the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission, Stanford (Calif.) University, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Caputi TL et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6291.
U.S. high school students who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning – “sexual minorities” – faced twice the risk of physical or sexual assault in the past year compared with their heterosexual peers, according to findings reported in a research letter.
Sexual-minority females were particularly more likely to experience physical violence while sexual-minority boys had a fourfold increased risk of sexual violence.
“The results of our study suggest the existence of a crisis of violence against sexual minority adolescents,” Theodore L. Caputi, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues reported in JAMA Pediatrics. “Given the substantial physical and emotional consequences of violence for those subjected to it and the large existing health disparities among sexual minority adolescents, addressing both physical and sexual violence against sexual minority adolescents should become a public health priority.”
Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said he was not surprised by the findings because adolescents who may feel more vulnerable relative to their peers are likely to be more of a target. They may not have the supports they need, he said, which will affect their resiliency and their ability to push back.
“These patients are at ages where their parents might be among their supporters,” Dr. Safer said in an interview. “People in their circle may not be aware of their circumstances.”
He emphasized the need for physicians to ensure their offices are safe places for sexual-minority youth to talk to adolescent patients about their gender and sexual identity as well as any history of victimization, and to involve parents in being an ally of their child.
The researchers analyzed data from the nationally representative 2015 and 2017 National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys administered to public and private high school students in grades 9-12 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 28,811 total respondents represented a 60% response rate both years.
After indicating their sex as male or female and their sexual orientation, respondents reported whether, in the past year, they had experienced a physical fight at school, a physical fight anywhere, or physical violence from a romantic partner. They also reported whether they had been sexually assaulted in the past year by a romantic partner or ever been forced to have intercourse. The 2017 survey included an additional question about sexual assault by anyone in the past year.
Most youth (87%) identified themselves as heterosexual while 2% were gay/lesbian, 7% were bisexual, and 4% were unsure. Sexual minorities reported a higher prevalence of all forms of violence and assault, compared with their heterosexual counterparts. Although risk of a physical fight in the past year differed by a small amount (28% of sexual-minority youth vs. 22% of heterosexual youth), the gap was considerably greater for risk of physical violence by a romantic partner (12% of sexual-minority youth vs. 5% of heterosexual youth).
More than three times as many sexual-minority adolescents (18%) as heterosexual adolescents (5%) said they had ever been forced to have intercourse, and a similarly high proportion of sexual-minority students (21%) had been sexually assaulted in the past year, compared with heterosexual students (8%). After accounting for survey year, sex, age, race/ethnicity, English language proficiency, and grade level, youth who identified as anything other than heterosexual were about twice as likely as their heterosexual counterparts to have experienced physical or sexual violence, including physical violence by a romantic partner (adjusted risk ratio, 1.97) or sexual assault by anyone (aRR, 2.10), in the past year. The risk of physical violence by a romantic partner or sexual assault by anyone was even greater for bisexual youth (aRR, 2.22 and aRR, 2.36, respectively).
The increased likelihood of physical violence and sexual violence differed by sex. Girls who identified as lesbian, bisexual, or questioning were more likely than heterosexual girls to have been in a fight at school or anywhere else (aRR, 1.91 and aRR, 1.74, respectively). Boys who were gay, bisexual, or questioning, meanwhile, were over four times more likely than heterosexual boys to have had forced intercourse or any kind of sexual assault (aRR, 4.70 and aRR, 4.64, respectively).
These findings point to the need for physicians to be “specifically talking to youth about gender identity and sexual orientation. Validating what kids are feeling is important,” Dr. Safer said in an interview.
Key to that process is making sure the physician’s office feels like a safe place for LGBTQ youth to have these kinds of conversations. “Most primary care and pediatric and adolescent care practices are not feeling well equipped to take care of these kids and are not necessarily serving as a good resource for these kids,” Dr. Safer said.
It’s also important for physicians to ask youth about potential violence or abuse they have experienced, including depression and sequelae from lack of support, for which gender- and sexual-minority youth are at greater risk, he said. Finally, doctors need to engage parents in the conversation.
“As a medical professional, you need to be asking the questions and really be out there as an ally, especially for pediatric and adolescent patients, and you need to be helping the parents of your patients be allies too,” Dr. Safer said.
The study was limited by having a binary question only about respondent’s sex and no data collection about transgender youth. The study’s cross-sectional design also precludes the ability to claim causation about any of the associations.
The research was funded by the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission, Stanford (Calif.) University, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Caputi TL et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6291.
U.S. high school students who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning – “sexual minorities” – faced twice the risk of physical or sexual assault in the past year compared with their heterosexual peers, according to findings reported in a research letter.
Sexual-minority females were particularly more likely to experience physical violence while sexual-minority boys had a fourfold increased risk of sexual violence.
“The results of our study suggest the existence of a crisis of violence against sexual minority adolescents,” Theodore L. Caputi, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues reported in JAMA Pediatrics. “Given the substantial physical and emotional consequences of violence for those subjected to it and the large existing health disparities among sexual minority adolescents, addressing both physical and sexual violence against sexual minority adolescents should become a public health priority.”
Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said he was not surprised by the findings because adolescents who may feel more vulnerable relative to their peers are likely to be more of a target. They may not have the supports they need, he said, which will affect their resiliency and their ability to push back.
“These patients are at ages where their parents might be among their supporters,” Dr. Safer said in an interview. “People in their circle may not be aware of their circumstances.”
He emphasized the need for physicians to ensure their offices are safe places for sexual-minority youth to talk to adolescent patients about their gender and sexual identity as well as any history of victimization, and to involve parents in being an ally of their child.
The researchers analyzed data from the nationally representative 2015 and 2017 National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys administered to public and private high school students in grades 9-12 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 28,811 total respondents represented a 60% response rate both years.
After indicating their sex as male or female and their sexual orientation, respondents reported whether, in the past year, they had experienced a physical fight at school, a physical fight anywhere, or physical violence from a romantic partner. They also reported whether they had been sexually assaulted in the past year by a romantic partner or ever been forced to have intercourse. The 2017 survey included an additional question about sexual assault by anyone in the past year.
Most youth (87%) identified themselves as heterosexual while 2% were gay/lesbian, 7% were bisexual, and 4% were unsure. Sexual minorities reported a higher prevalence of all forms of violence and assault, compared with their heterosexual counterparts. Although risk of a physical fight in the past year differed by a small amount (28% of sexual-minority youth vs. 22% of heterosexual youth), the gap was considerably greater for risk of physical violence by a romantic partner (12% of sexual-minority youth vs. 5% of heterosexual youth).
More than three times as many sexual-minority adolescents (18%) as heterosexual adolescents (5%) said they had ever been forced to have intercourse, and a similarly high proportion of sexual-minority students (21%) had been sexually assaulted in the past year, compared with heterosexual students (8%). After accounting for survey year, sex, age, race/ethnicity, English language proficiency, and grade level, youth who identified as anything other than heterosexual were about twice as likely as their heterosexual counterparts to have experienced physical or sexual violence, including physical violence by a romantic partner (adjusted risk ratio, 1.97) or sexual assault by anyone (aRR, 2.10), in the past year. The risk of physical violence by a romantic partner or sexual assault by anyone was even greater for bisexual youth (aRR, 2.22 and aRR, 2.36, respectively).
The increased likelihood of physical violence and sexual violence differed by sex. Girls who identified as lesbian, bisexual, or questioning were more likely than heterosexual girls to have been in a fight at school or anywhere else (aRR, 1.91 and aRR, 1.74, respectively). Boys who were gay, bisexual, or questioning, meanwhile, were over four times more likely than heterosexual boys to have had forced intercourse or any kind of sexual assault (aRR, 4.70 and aRR, 4.64, respectively).
These findings point to the need for physicians to be “specifically talking to youth about gender identity and sexual orientation. Validating what kids are feeling is important,” Dr. Safer said in an interview.
Key to that process is making sure the physician’s office feels like a safe place for LGBTQ youth to have these kinds of conversations. “Most primary care and pediatric and adolescent care practices are not feeling well equipped to take care of these kids and are not necessarily serving as a good resource for these kids,” Dr. Safer said.
It’s also important for physicians to ask youth about potential violence or abuse they have experienced, including depression and sequelae from lack of support, for which gender- and sexual-minority youth are at greater risk, he said. Finally, doctors need to engage parents in the conversation.
“As a medical professional, you need to be asking the questions and really be out there as an ally, especially for pediatric and adolescent patients, and you need to be helping the parents of your patients be allies too,” Dr. Safer said.
The study was limited by having a binary question only about respondent’s sex and no data collection about transgender youth. The study’s cross-sectional design also precludes the ability to claim causation about any of the associations.
The research was funded by the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission, Stanford (Calif.) University, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Caputi TL et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6291.
FROM JAMA PEDIATRICS
Gender pronouns in EMR preferred by many gender nonconforming teens
Most transgender and gender nonconforming youth would like their preferred name and pronouns be recorded throughout their EMRs, but very few are ever asked for that identity information outside of gender specialty clinic settings, according to a recent research letter in JAMA Pediatrics.
The findings are not surprising, said Cora Breuner, MD, a professor of pediatrics in adolescent medicine at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington, because “we know that use of gender-affirming language when accessing health care is extremely important to transgender youth.”
“Use of gender-affirming language in the health care system is associated with improved mental health outcomes in this population,” Dr Breuner said in an interview.
But the authors of the study noted that EMRs often lack the functions needed to provide gender-affirming care.
“To better support this vulnerable group of youths, health systems and EMRs should allow for EMR-wide name and pronoun documentation, even when a patient has not legally changed their name,” Gina M. Sequeira, MD, of UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh and associates wrote.
Although many providers have begun routinely asking patients for both their gender identity and their sex assigned at birth, these questions leave out a patient’s preferred name and pronouns – crucial components of respectful and affirming care, the authors explained.
At a specialty gender clinic, the authors surveyed 204 transgender youths, aged 12-26 years, regarding how their name and pronouns are recorded in their EMR files. Just over half the respondents were under age 18 years (56%), and most were white (86%). Most were transmasculine (59%), with 21% transfeminine and 20% nonbinary.
Most respondents (69%) went by a name other than their legal one, yet only 9% said they were frequently or always asked in clinical settings outside specialty gender centers whether they wanted their preferred name and pronouns noted in the EMR.
A majority (79%), however, said they wanted their name and pronouns noted throughout their EMR. The youths’ preferences varied according to their gender identity and how many people were aware of their gender identity, but not by age, race/ethnicity, or perceived amount of parental support.
Only two-thirds (67%) of 42 transfeminine patients wished their EMR to include their preferred name, compared with most (85%) of 121 transmasculine patients and nearly all (92%) of 37 nonbinary respondents (P = .007). Pronouns preferences were similar: All but one nonbinary respondent wanted their pronouns in the EMR, compared with 84% of transmasculine and 64% of transfeminine respondents (P=.0003).
“It may be that transfeminine patients have more pressure to ‘stay’ their assigned gender,” Dr Breuner said regarding these findings. “ ‘Outness’ may be challenging, and thus they remain in their traditional gender norms, but further research on this theory is warranted.”
Among those who were “out to everyone,” most (88%) wanted their preferred name and pronouns recorded in the EMR, and the proportion was similar for those “out to most.” But only 65% of those “out to few or no one” preferred their name and pronouns be noted in the EMR, a similar proportion for those “out to some.”
Of 7 youths who did not wish to include their name and pronouns throughout their EMR, all but one said they didn’t think it was necessary because they believed they already “passed” well enough as their gender. Just one person said they did not want name and pronouns recorded for confidentiality reasons.
However, confidentiality is still an important consideration particularly for minors, the authors and Dr. Breuner pointed out.
“It is essential to discuss confidentiality with the youth as parents may have access to the medical records younger than 18 years of age,” Dr. Breuner said.
The authors noted the study’s limitation in using a convenience sample but they and Dr. Breuner said that the findings still demonstrate transgender youths’ desire for EMRs to include their name and pronouns.
The research was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no industry disclosures.
SOURCE: Sequeira GM et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6071.
Most transgender and gender nonconforming youth would like their preferred name and pronouns be recorded throughout their EMRs, but very few are ever asked for that identity information outside of gender specialty clinic settings, according to a recent research letter in JAMA Pediatrics.
The findings are not surprising, said Cora Breuner, MD, a professor of pediatrics in adolescent medicine at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington, because “we know that use of gender-affirming language when accessing health care is extremely important to transgender youth.”
“Use of gender-affirming language in the health care system is associated with improved mental health outcomes in this population,” Dr Breuner said in an interview.
But the authors of the study noted that EMRs often lack the functions needed to provide gender-affirming care.
“To better support this vulnerable group of youths, health systems and EMRs should allow for EMR-wide name and pronoun documentation, even when a patient has not legally changed their name,” Gina M. Sequeira, MD, of UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh and associates wrote.
Although many providers have begun routinely asking patients for both their gender identity and their sex assigned at birth, these questions leave out a patient’s preferred name and pronouns – crucial components of respectful and affirming care, the authors explained.
At a specialty gender clinic, the authors surveyed 204 transgender youths, aged 12-26 years, regarding how their name and pronouns are recorded in their EMR files. Just over half the respondents were under age 18 years (56%), and most were white (86%). Most were transmasculine (59%), with 21% transfeminine and 20% nonbinary.
Most respondents (69%) went by a name other than their legal one, yet only 9% said they were frequently or always asked in clinical settings outside specialty gender centers whether they wanted their preferred name and pronouns noted in the EMR.
A majority (79%), however, said they wanted their name and pronouns noted throughout their EMR. The youths’ preferences varied according to their gender identity and how many people were aware of their gender identity, but not by age, race/ethnicity, or perceived amount of parental support.
Only two-thirds (67%) of 42 transfeminine patients wished their EMR to include their preferred name, compared with most (85%) of 121 transmasculine patients and nearly all (92%) of 37 nonbinary respondents (P = .007). Pronouns preferences were similar: All but one nonbinary respondent wanted their pronouns in the EMR, compared with 84% of transmasculine and 64% of transfeminine respondents (P=.0003).
“It may be that transfeminine patients have more pressure to ‘stay’ their assigned gender,” Dr Breuner said regarding these findings. “ ‘Outness’ may be challenging, and thus they remain in their traditional gender norms, but further research on this theory is warranted.”
Among those who were “out to everyone,” most (88%) wanted their preferred name and pronouns recorded in the EMR, and the proportion was similar for those “out to most.” But only 65% of those “out to few or no one” preferred their name and pronouns be noted in the EMR, a similar proportion for those “out to some.”
Of 7 youths who did not wish to include their name and pronouns throughout their EMR, all but one said they didn’t think it was necessary because they believed they already “passed” well enough as their gender. Just one person said they did not want name and pronouns recorded for confidentiality reasons.
However, confidentiality is still an important consideration particularly for minors, the authors and Dr. Breuner pointed out.
“It is essential to discuss confidentiality with the youth as parents may have access to the medical records younger than 18 years of age,” Dr. Breuner said.
The authors noted the study’s limitation in using a convenience sample but they and Dr. Breuner said that the findings still demonstrate transgender youths’ desire for EMRs to include their name and pronouns.
The research was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no industry disclosures.
SOURCE: Sequeira GM et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6071.
Most transgender and gender nonconforming youth would like their preferred name and pronouns be recorded throughout their EMRs, but very few are ever asked for that identity information outside of gender specialty clinic settings, according to a recent research letter in JAMA Pediatrics.
The findings are not surprising, said Cora Breuner, MD, a professor of pediatrics in adolescent medicine at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington, because “we know that use of gender-affirming language when accessing health care is extremely important to transgender youth.”
“Use of gender-affirming language in the health care system is associated with improved mental health outcomes in this population,” Dr Breuner said in an interview.
But the authors of the study noted that EMRs often lack the functions needed to provide gender-affirming care.
“To better support this vulnerable group of youths, health systems and EMRs should allow for EMR-wide name and pronoun documentation, even when a patient has not legally changed their name,” Gina M. Sequeira, MD, of UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh and associates wrote.
Although many providers have begun routinely asking patients for both their gender identity and their sex assigned at birth, these questions leave out a patient’s preferred name and pronouns – crucial components of respectful and affirming care, the authors explained.
At a specialty gender clinic, the authors surveyed 204 transgender youths, aged 12-26 years, regarding how their name and pronouns are recorded in their EMR files. Just over half the respondents were under age 18 years (56%), and most were white (86%). Most were transmasculine (59%), with 21% transfeminine and 20% nonbinary.
Most respondents (69%) went by a name other than their legal one, yet only 9% said they were frequently or always asked in clinical settings outside specialty gender centers whether they wanted their preferred name and pronouns noted in the EMR.
A majority (79%), however, said they wanted their name and pronouns noted throughout their EMR. The youths’ preferences varied according to their gender identity and how many people were aware of their gender identity, but not by age, race/ethnicity, or perceived amount of parental support.
Only two-thirds (67%) of 42 transfeminine patients wished their EMR to include their preferred name, compared with most (85%) of 121 transmasculine patients and nearly all (92%) of 37 nonbinary respondents (P = .007). Pronouns preferences were similar: All but one nonbinary respondent wanted their pronouns in the EMR, compared with 84% of transmasculine and 64% of transfeminine respondents (P=.0003).
“It may be that transfeminine patients have more pressure to ‘stay’ their assigned gender,” Dr Breuner said regarding these findings. “ ‘Outness’ may be challenging, and thus they remain in their traditional gender norms, but further research on this theory is warranted.”
Among those who were “out to everyone,” most (88%) wanted their preferred name and pronouns recorded in the EMR, and the proportion was similar for those “out to most.” But only 65% of those “out to few or no one” preferred their name and pronouns be noted in the EMR, a similar proportion for those “out to some.”
Of 7 youths who did not wish to include their name and pronouns throughout their EMR, all but one said they didn’t think it was necessary because they believed they already “passed” well enough as their gender. Just one person said they did not want name and pronouns recorded for confidentiality reasons.
However, confidentiality is still an important consideration particularly for minors, the authors and Dr. Breuner pointed out.
“It is essential to discuss confidentiality with the youth as parents may have access to the medical records younger than 18 years of age,” Dr. Breuner said.
The authors noted the study’s limitation in using a convenience sample but they and Dr. Breuner said that the findings still demonstrate transgender youths’ desire for EMRs to include their name and pronouns.
The research was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no industry disclosures.
SOURCE: Sequeira GM et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6071.
FROM JAMA PEDIATRICS
Macrolides early in pregnancy linked to greater malformation risk
Children exposed to macrolides during the first trimester of pregnancy had an increased risk of major malformations, compared with first-trimester penicillin exposure, according to an observational study.
Use of antibiotics is common in pregnancy, and macrolides commonly are used if a penicillin allergy is reported.
Hypospadias and other genital malformations also were more likely with exposure during any trimester to macrolides, although this association lost significance when limited to the first trimester. The researchers did not identify any associations with macrolides exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders.
The observational study could not establish causality, but the researchers calculated an estimate of likely excess malformations if the association were found to be causal: “For every 1,000 mothers prescribed macrolides instead of penicillins during the first trimester, an additional 4.1 children would have cardiovascular malformations,” Heng Fan, a PhD student at the University College London, and colleagues wrote in the BMJ. “The corresponding figures for prescriptions during any trimester and genital malformations would be 1.7.”
The researchers used records from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink to analyze outcomes in 104,605 children born between 1990 and 2016 to mothers who received at least one prescription of erythromycin, clarithromycin, azithromycin, or penicillin monotherapy between their fourth week of pregnancy and delivery. Women prescribed any known teratogenic medications were excluded.
The majority of the mothers (92%) had been prescribed penicillin once, and 8% were prescribed a macrolide antibiotic once during pregnancy.
The researchers tallied and calculated the children’s risk of major malformations; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; ADHD; autism spectrum disorder; and any nervous, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, genital, or urinary malformations. The children were tracked through a median 6 years of age.
In comparing risk of malformations or neurodevelopmental disorders among children, the researchers chose to compare exposure to macrolides and penicillin to reduce the likelihood of confounding by indication for infections. (They also included two negative control groups: unexposed siblings and women prescribed antibiotics before conception.) The authors acknowledged, however, that residual confounding still may occur “if macrolides were prescribed for specific indications (e.g., chlamydia), or when potential risk factors for malformations or neurodevelopmental outcomes differed between treatment groups.”
The overall rate of malformations was 22 per 1,000 children prenatally exposed to macrolides (28 in first trimester and 20 in second or third trimester) and 17 per 1,000 children prenatally exposed to penicillin. The risk and type of malformations varied, however, according to the trimester.
The researchers made adjustments to account for differences in a wide range of maternal factors: age at delivery, calendar year of delivery, alcohol misuse, illegal drug use, tobacco use, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, anxiety, depression, and epilepsy. They also adjusted for parity, multiples, and chronic medical treatments, as well as genitourinary tract infections or STIs during pregnancy, both of which are linked to preterm labor.
Compared with children exposed to penicillin during the first trimester of pregnancy, risk of malformations was 1.6 times greater in those exposed to macrolides in the first trimester (risk ratio, 1.55; 28 vs. 18 per 1,000). Erythromycin exposure in the first trimester also was linked to a 50% greater likelihood of any major malformation compared with penicillin (RR, 1.5; 27 vs. 18 per 1,000).
Cardiovascular malformations in particular were more likely in those exposed to macrolides (11 per 1,000), compared with penicillin (7 per 1,000) in the first trimester (RR, 1.62). Meanwhile, genital malformations, primarily hypospadias, occurred more frequently in children whose mothers were prescribed macrolides (5 per 1,000), compared with penicillin (3 per 1,000) in any trimester (RR, 1.58).
No increased risk of major malformations was associated with macrolides prescribed only in the second or third trimester, although a borderline significant association existed with gastrointestinal malformations. The authors also found no links between macrolides exposure and increased risk of cerebral palsy, epilepsy, ADHD, or autism spectrum disorder.
The findings did not change in several sensitivity analyses, including one that restricted analysis to antibiotics prescribed only for respiratory tract infections.
Dr. Fan and associates discussed several potential biological mechanisms for causation, including the arrhythmic effect of macrolides that may relate to cardiovascular malformations or contribute to fetal hypoxia. They noted that “macrolide prescribing during pregnancy warrants caution,” and recommend including on drug safety labels “that there is uncertainty about the safety of macrolides, including erythromycin” and alternative antibiotics should be used when possible.
Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, agreed with the study authors that use of macrolides in the first trimester warrants further investigation, and if an appropriate alternative antibiotic is available, then it should be preferentially considered when treating infections in the first trimester.
“However, if macrolides are the only treatment option, pregnant women can be reassured that the absolute risk of a birth defect is low, and this should not discourage them from taking a macrolide when needed as untreated infections pose a greater risk in pregnancy,” she said in an interview.
“This study does not establish that macrolide antibiotics cause birth defects, but it suggests a potential association. Previous studies examining the use of macrolides, such as erythromycin, have not demonstrated a consistent pattern of birth defects, and heart defects identified were classified as mostly mild. The authors suggest that the potential biologic mechanism based on rat models may be that macrolides might induce fetal cardiac arrhythmias and short-term fetal hypoxia. This study was underpowered to examine macrolide exposure for specific malformations. To avoid underpowered comparisons, the authors’ categorized malformations by organ systems, so the spectrum of cardiac defects is unclear,” commented Dr. Krishna, who also is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.
“Current recommendations for macrolide antibiotic use in pregnancy in the second and third trimester of pregnancy, and in particular when used for obstetric indications, such as prelabor rupture of membranes to prolong the latency period to delivery, should not be altered based on the findings of this study,” she concluded.
The research was funded by Child Health Research CIO Trust, the China Scholarship Council, Health Data Research UK, and the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Fan and associates had no industry disclosures. Dr. Krishna had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Fan H et al. BMJ. 2020;368:m331.
Children exposed to macrolides during the first trimester of pregnancy had an increased risk of major malformations, compared with first-trimester penicillin exposure, according to an observational study.
Use of antibiotics is common in pregnancy, and macrolides commonly are used if a penicillin allergy is reported.
Hypospadias and other genital malformations also were more likely with exposure during any trimester to macrolides, although this association lost significance when limited to the first trimester. The researchers did not identify any associations with macrolides exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders.
The observational study could not establish causality, but the researchers calculated an estimate of likely excess malformations if the association were found to be causal: “For every 1,000 mothers prescribed macrolides instead of penicillins during the first trimester, an additional 4.1 children would have cardiovascular malformations,” Heng Fan, a PhD student at the University College London, and colleagues wrote in the BMJ. “The corresponding figures for prescriptions during any trimester and genital malformations would be 1.7.”
The researchers used records from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink to analyze outcomes in 104,605 children born between 1990 and 2016 to mothers who received at least one prescription of erythromycin, clarithromycin, azithromycin, or penicillin monotherapy between their fourth week of pregnancy and delivery. Women prescribed any known teratogenic medications were excluded.
The majority of the mothers (92%) had been prescribed penicillin once, and 8% were prescribed a macrolide antibiotic once during pregnancy.
The researchers tallied and calculated the children’s risk of major malformations; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; ADHD; autism spectrum disorder; and any nervous, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, genital, or urinary malformations. The children were tracked through a median 6 years of age.
In comparing risk of malformations or neurodevelopmental disorders among children, the researchers chose to compare exposure to macrolides and penicillin to reduce the likelihood of confounding by indication for infections. (They also included two negative control groups: unexposed siblings and women prescribed antibiotics before conception.) The authors acknowledged, however, that residual confounding still may occur “if macrolides were prescribed for specific indications (e.g., chlamydia), or when potential risk factors for malformations or neurodevelopmental outcomes differed between treatment groups.”
The overall rate of malformations was 22 per 1,000 children prenatally exposed to macrolides (28 in first trimester and 20 in second or third trimester) and 17 per 1,000 children prenatally exposed to penicillin. The risk and type of malformations varied, however, according to the trimester.
The researchers made adjustments to account for differences in a wide range of maternal factors: age at delivery, calendar year of delivery, alcohol misuse, illegal drug use, tobacco use, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, anxiety, depression, and epilepsy. They also adjusted for parity, multiples, and chronic medical treatments, as well as genitourinary tract infections or STIs during pregnancy, both of which are linked to preterm labor.
Compared with children exposed to penicillin during the first trimester of pregnancy, risk of malformations was 1.6 times greater in those exposed to macrolides in the first trimester (risk ratio, 1.55; 28 vs. 18 per 1,000). Erythromycin exposure in the first trimester also was linked to a 50% greater likelihood of any major malformation compared with penicillin (RR, 1.5; 27 vs. 18 per 1,000).
Cardiovascular malformations in particular were more likely in those exposed to macrolides (11 per 1,000), compared with penicillin (7 per 1,000) in the first trimester (RR, 1.62). Meanwhile, genital malformations, primarily hypospadias, occurred more frequently in children whose mothers were prescribed macrolides (5 per 1,000), compared with penicillin (3 per 1,000) in any trimester (RR, 1.58).
No increased risk of major malformations was associated with macrolides prescribed only in the second or third trimester, although a borderline significant association existed with gastrointestinal malformations. The authors also found no links between macrolides exposure and increased risk of cerebral palsy, epilepsy, ADHD, or autism spectrum disorder.
The findings did not change in several sensitivity analyses, including one that restricted analysis to antibiotics prescribed only for respiratory tract infections.
Dr. Fan and associates discussed several potential biological mechanisms for causation, including the arrhythmic effect of macrolides that may relate to cardiovascular malformations or contribute to fetal hypoxia. They noted that “macrolide prescribing during pregnancy warrants caution,” and recommend including on drug safety labels “that there is uncertainty about the safety of macrolides, including erythromycin” and alternative antibiotics should be used when possible.
Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, agreed with the study authors that use of macrolides in the first trimester warrants further investigation, and if an appropriate alternative antibiotic is available, then it should be preferentially considered when treating infections in the first trimester.
“However, if macrolides are the only treatment option, pregnant women can be reassured that the absolute risk of a birth defect is low, and this should not discourage them from taking a macrolide when needed as untreated infections pose a greater risk in pregnancy,” she said in an interview.
“This study does not establish that macrolide antibiotics cause birth defects, but it suggests a potential association. Previous studies examining the use of macrolides, such as erythromycin, have not demonstrated a consistent pattern of birth defects, and heart defects identified were classified as mostly mild. The authors suggest that the potential biologic mechanism based on rat models may be that macrolides might induce fetal cardiac arrhythmias and short-term fetal hypoxia. This study was underpowered to examine macrolide exposure for specific malformations. To avoid underpowered comparisons, the authors’ categorized malformations by organ systems, so the spectrum of cardiac defects is unclear,” commented Dr. Krishna, who also is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.
“Current recommendations for macrolide antibiotic use in pregnancy in the second and third trimester of pregnancy, and in particular when used for obstetric indications, such as prelabor rupture of membranes to prolong the latency period to delivery, should not be altered based on the findings of this study,” she concluded.
The research was funded by Child Health Research CIO Trust, the China Scholarship Council, Health Data Research UK, and the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Fan and associates had no industry disclosures. Dr. Krishna had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Fan H et al. BMJ. 2020;368:m331.
Children exposed to macrolides during the first trimester of pregnancy had an increased risk of major malformations, compared with first-trimester penicillin exposure, according to an observational study.
Use of antibiotics is common in pregnancy, and macrolides commonly are used if a penicillin allergy is reported.
Hypospadias and other genital malformations also were more likely with exposure during any trimester to macrolides, although this association lost significance when limited to the first trimester. The researchers did not identify any associations with macrolides exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders.
The observational study could not establish causality, but the researchers calculated an estimate of likely excess malformations if the association were found to be causal: “For every 1,000 mothers prescribed macrolides instead of penicillins during the first trimester, an additional 4.1 children would have cardiovascular malformations,” Heng Fan, a PhD student at the University College London, and colleagues wrote in the BMJ. “The corresponding figures for prescriptions during any trimester and genital malformations would be 1.7.”
The researchers used records from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink to analyze outcomes in 104,605 children born between 1990 and 2016 to mothers who received at least one prescription of erythromycin, clarithromycin, azithromycin, or penicillin monotherapy between their fourth week of pregnancy and delivery. Women prescribed any known teratogenic medications were excluded.
The majority of the mothers (92%) had been prescribed penicillin once, and 8% were prescribed a macrolide antibiotic once during pregnancy.
The researchers tallied and calculated the children’s risk of major malformations; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; ADHD; autism spectrum disorder; and any nervous, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, genital, or urinary malformations. The children were tracked through a median 6 years of age.
In comparing risk of malformations or neurodevelopmental disorders among children, the researchers chose to compare exposure to macrolides and penicillin to reduce the likelihood of confounding by indication for infections. (They also included two negative control groups: unexposed siblings and women prescribed antibiotics before conception.) The authors acknowledged, however, that residual confounding still may occur “if macrolides were prescribed for specific indications (e.g., chlamydia), or when potential risk factors for malformations or neurodevelopmental outcomes differed between treatment groups.”
The overall rate of malformations was 22 per 1,000 children prenatally exposed to macrolides (28 in first trimester and 20 in second or third trimester) and 17 per 1,000 children prenatally exposed to penicillin. The risk and type of malformations varied, however, according to the trimester.
The researchers made adjustments to account for differences in a wide range of maternal factors: age at delivery, calendar year of delivery, alcohol misuse, illegal drug use, tobacco use, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, anxiety, depression, and epilepsy. They also adjusted for parity, multiples, and chronic medical treatments, as well as genitourinary tract infections or STIs during pregnancy, both of which are linked to preterm labor.
Compared with children exposed to penicillin during the first trimester of pregnancy, risk of malformations was 1.6 times greater in those exposed to macrolides in the first trimester (risk ratio, 1.55; 28 vs. 18 per 1,000). Erythromycin exposure in the first trimester also was linked to a 50% greater likelihood of any major malformation compared with penicillin (RR, 1.5; 27 vs. 18 per 1,000).
Cardiovascular malformations in particular were more likely in those exposed to macrolides (11 per 1,000), compared with penicillin (7 per 1,000) in the first trimester (RR, 1.62). Meanwhile, genital malformations, primarily hypospadias, occurred more frequently in children whose mothers were prescribed macrolides (5 per 1,000), compared with penicillin (3 per 1,000) in any trimester (RR, 1.58).
No increased risk of major malformations was associated with macrolides prescribed only in the second or third trimester, although a borderline significant association existed with gastrointestinal malformations. The authors also found no links between macrolides exposure and increased risk of cerebral palsy, epilepsy, ADHD, or autism spectrum disorder.
The findings did not change in several sensitivity analyses, including one that restricted analysis to antibiotics prescribed only for respiratory tract infections.
Dr. Fan and associates discussed several potential biological mechanisms for causation, including the arrhythmic effect of macrolides that may relate to cardiovascular malformations or contribute to fetal hypoxia. They noted that “macrolide prescribing during pregnancy warrants caution,” and recommend including on drug safety labels “that there is uncertainty about the safety of macrolides, including erythromycin” and alternative antibiotics should be used when possible.
Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, agreed with the study authors that use of macrolides in the first trimester warrants further investigation, and if an appropriate alternative antibiotic is available, then it should be preferentially considered when treating infections in the first trimester.
“However, if macrolides are the only treatment option, pregnant women can be reassured that the absolute risk of a birth defect is low, and this should not discourage them from taking a macrolide when needed as untreated infections pose a greater risk in pregnancy,” she said in an interview.
“This study does not establish that macrolide antibiotics cause birth defects, but it suggests a potential association. Previous studies examining the use of macrolides, such as erythromycin, have not demonstrated a consistent pattern of birth defects, and heart defects identified were classified as mostly mild. The authors suggest that the potential biologic mechanism based on rat models may be that macrolides might induce fetal cardiac arrhythmias and short-term fetal hypoxia. This study was underpowered to examine macrolide exposure for specific malformations. To avoid underpowered comparisons, the authors’ categorized malformations by organ systems, so the spectrum of cardiac defects is unclear,” commented Dr. Krishna, who also is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.
“Current recommendations for macrolide antibiotic use in pregnancy in the second and third trimester of pregnancy, and in particular when used for obstetric indications, such as prelabor rupture of membranes to prolong the latency period to delivery, should not be altered based on the findings of this study,” she concluded.
The research was funded by Child Health Research CIO Trust, the China Scholarship Council, Health Data Research UK, and the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Fan and associates had no industry disclosures. Dr. Krishna had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Fan H et al. BMJ. 2020;368:m331.
FROM THE BMJ
Newborn transfer may not reflect true rate of complications
Neonatal transfer was the factor most often associated with unexpected, severe complications at birth, particularly at hospitals that had the highest rates of complications, according to a cross-sectional study published online in JAMA Network Open (2020;3[2]:e1919498).
Mark A. Clapp, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues wrote. “Thus, if this metric is to be used in its current form, it would appear that accreditors, regulatory bodies, and payers should consider adjusting for or stratifying by a hospital’s level of neonatal care to avoid disincentivizing against appropriate transfers.”
The Joint Commission recently included unexpected complications in term newborns as a marker of quality of obstetric care, but it does not currently recommend any risk adjustment for the metric. The authors aimed to learn which factors regarding patients and hospitals were associated with such complications. Severe, unexpected newborn complications include death, seizure, use of assisted ventilation for at least 6 hours, transfer to another facility, or a 5-minute Apgar score of 3 or less.
“This measure has been proposed to serve as a balancing measure to maternal metrics, such as the rate of nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex-presenting cesarean deliveries,” the authors explained.
This study was supported by a Health Policy Award from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.
This story first appeared on Medscape.
Neonatal transfer was the factor most often associated with unexpected, severe complications at birth, particularly at hospitals that had the highest rates of complications, according to a cross-sectional study published online in JAMA Network Open (2020;3[2]:e1919498).
Mark A. Clapp, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues wrote. “Thus, if this metric is to be used in its current form, it would appear that accreditors, regulatory bodies, and payers should consider adjusting for or stratifying by a hospital’s level of neonatal care to avoid disincentivizing against appropriate transfers.”
The Joint Commission recently included unexpected complications in term newborns as a marker of quality of obstetric care, but it does not currently recommend any risk adjustment for the metric. The authors aimed to learn which factors regarding patients and hospitals were associated with such complications. Severe, unexpected newborn complications include death, seizure, use of assisted ventilation for at least 6 hours, transfer to another facility, or a 5-minute Apgar score of 3 or less.
“This measure has been proposed to serve as a balancing measure to maternal metrics, such as the rate of nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex-presenting cesarean deliveries,” the authors explained.
This study was supported by a Health Policy Award from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.
This story first appeared on Medscape.
Neonatal transfer was the factor most often associated with unexpected, severe complications at birth, particularly at hospitals that had the highest rates of complications, according to a cross-sectional study published online in JAMA Network Open (2020;3[2]:e1919498).
Mark A. Clapp, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues wrote. “Thus, if this metric is to be used in its current form, it would appear that accreditors, regulatory bodies, and payers should consider adjusting for or stratifying by a hospital’s level of neonatal care to avoid disincentivizing against appropriate transfers.”
The Joint Commission recently included unexpected complications in term newborns as a marker of quality of obstetric care, but it does not currently recommend any risk adjustment for the metric. The authors aimed to learn which factors regarding patients and hospitals were associated with such complications. Severe, unexpected newborn complications include death, seizure, use of assisted ventilation for at least 6 hours, transfer to another facility, or a 5-minute Apgar score of 3 or less.
“This measure has been proposed to serve as a balancing measure to maternal metrics, such as the rate of nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex-presenting cesarean deliveries,” the authors explained.
This study was supported by a Health Policy Award from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.
This story first appeared on Medscape.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Weight bias against teens: Understand it and combat it
NEW ORLEANS – and support your patients regardless of weight.
Rebecca Puhl, PhD, a deputy director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at the University of Connecticut, Hartford, said that weight-based discrimination can occur whatever a person’s size or body shape, but it’s most often targeted at youth who are overweight or obese.
These children and teens commonly face teasing, harassment, cyberbullying, physical aggression, and social bullying from peers, coaches, teachers, and even parents, Dr. Puhl told attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Common beliefs about overweight people – that they have little self discipline or poor eating and activity habits – only perpetuate stereotypes, she said. Common stereotypes are that people with obesity are noncompliant, lazy, sloppy, unsuccessful, unintelligent, dishonest, and awkward.
And health professionals of every type have been found to harbor these biases. In one study of more than 4,000 first-year medical students, well over half the respondents revealed explicit (74%) and implicit (67%) weight bias (Obesity. 2014 Apr;22[4]:1201-8). The study also found that explicit weight bias was stronger than explicit bias against blacks, Hispanics, LGBTQ people, and poor people.
Know the effects of weight stigma
Far from a minor issue, the discrimination that begins in childhood against those who are overweight can have a long-lasting impact on their future prospects and mental health. Being overweight is overwhelmingly cited as the most common reason for bullying (Pediatr Obes. 2016 Aug;11[4]:241-50). Dr. Puhl described to attendees how weight bias shifts throughout a lifetime, beginning as early as preschool. In childhood, the stereotypes about being overweight worsen, and the teasing and bullying increase. By adolescence, this treatment affects teens’ psychological, social, and physical well-being. It then translates in adulthood into reduced opportunities in employment and education, and poorer access and treatment in health care.
The mental distress caused by weight bullying often takes the form of depression, anxiety, and substance use, Dr. Puhl said, and children’s academic success can be hampered by bullying about their weight. One study found a higher risk of poor grades and school avoidance with each additional teasing incident (J Youth Adolesc. 2012 Jan;41[1]:27-40).
Weight stigma also can contribute to more weight gain, obesity, and lower physical activity levels. Maladaptive eating behaviors can result from weight stigmatization as well: binge eating, emotional eating, increased consumption in general, and other eating disorders. Severe binge eating is 80% more likely among teens who are bullied about their weight, Dr. Puhl said, and the risk increases with increased frequency and types of bullying.
Children who are teased about their weight often become less willing to engage in physical activity, she noted. They may skip gym class, feel less competent about physical activity, and end up enjoying sports participation less.
Further, sexual- and gender-minority youth report high rates of weight-related teasing from friends and family regardless of their body mass index (BMI) percentile, Dr. Puhl emphasized. Researchers have found bullying about weight in this population linked to dieting, difficulty sleeping, high stress levels, binge drinking, smoking, and marijuana use.
Know how to combat weight bias
Dr. Puhl described strategies for reducing weight bias based on clinical practice recommendations in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statement entitled “Stigma Experienced by Children and Adolescents With Obesity” (Pediatrics. 2017 Dec;140[6]:e20173034).
Be aware. Consider how personal assumptions and attitudes about weight can affect your body language, tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, eye contact (or lack thereof), and spatial distance from the patient.
Recognizing the biological, genetic, and environmental causes of obesity can reduce stigma and improve understanding of the complexity of obesity etiology. It’s also important that you help parents understand this complexity and the negative impact of weight stigma.
Consider language and word choice. “Carefully consider language that might unintentionally communicate bias, blame, or negative judgment,” Dr. Puhl told attendees. “Use language that is supportive and empowering.”
Terms such as “unhealthy weight” and “high BMI” are less stigmatizing than “fat” and “morbidly obese” to parents, she said, and research has found nearly a quarter of parents would avoid future doctor appointments if their child’s doctor used stigmatizing terms to discuss weight (Pediatrics. 2011 Oct;128[4]:e786-93).
Teens themselves may have diverse preferences for the language used. Start by asking: “Could we talk about your weight today?” and then follow up by directly asking, “what words would you feel most comfortable with as we talk about your weight?”
Person-first language – such as “person with obesity” instead of “obese person” also is important to reducing stigma, she said.
It’s normal for you to feel uneasy about bringing up weight with patients, so Dr. Puhl recommended you practice dialogue out loud.
“Acknowledge your strengths,” she said. “You already have the skills and experience of engaging in difficult conversations with patients and families on a range of other health issues,” so apply that in this context as well.
Screen for negative experiences that could indicate weight-based bullying. These could include teasing and bullying, low self-esteem, poor school performance, depression, and anxiety.
“Remember that weight-based victimization can occur at diverse body sizes, not just in youth with obesity,” Dr. Puhl said. If you discover your patient is experiencing weight-related bullying, determine whether they have a support system in place and whether a mental health referral is appropriate. Provide or refer for behavior change counseling with motivational interviewing and patient-centered, empathic approaches. Parents should be aware of the issue and should contact the child’s teachers and school administration to help address it.
But before you do that, keep in mind that it’s not just peers doing the bullying. According to a study of teens with obesity enrolled in a national weight-loss camp, 37% of teen participants in 2012 said that their parents bully them (Pediatrics. 2013 Jan;131[1]:e1-9).
You should assess whether family interactions or the parents’ own history with weight is involved. If parents make disparaging comments about their child’s weight, “use this as an opportunity to model appropriate language and educate parents about weight bias,” Dr. Puhl said.
It’s also important to realize that parents themselves often are frustrated, so critical comments about their language or approach can backfire, she warned. Instead, help parents understand how to create a home setting that encourages healthy food choices, praises children for healthy decision making, and models positive health behaviors. It is key for them to focus on improving their children’s health behaviors rather than focusing on weight.
And before you contact the school, remember teachers also are common perpetrators of weight stigma, Dr. Puhl noted. She gave as an example a study in which investigators assessed 133 teachers’ perceptions of middle or high school students’ abilities based on photos that had been digitally altered to show each girl both as average weight or as overweight. Each photo was associated with an essay specifically chosen because it was neither particularly good nor bad (Brit J Educ Psychol. 2019 Oct 26. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12322). The teachers judged the essays believed to be submitted by overweight girls to be “similar in structural quality,” but they gave the overweight girls lower grades than the average-weight girls. They also indicated that they considered the overweight girls “put forth more effort, needed more remedial assistance, and had lower overall grades in school.” The teachers also rated other teachers’ weight bias to be at a low level, and their own weight bias to be “significantly lower” than the others.
Assess your clinical environment. Be aware of your clinical environment and whether it meets the needs of youth with diverse body sizes. That includes having a range of sturdy armless seating options and adequately sized doorways, hallways, and restrooms. You also should have beds, wheelchairs, and exam tables with adequate weight capacity. Also check that you have supplies, such as robes or blood pressure cuffs, on hand for a variety of body sizes.
NEW ORLEANS – and support your patients regardless of weight.
Rebecca Puhl, PhD, a deputy director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at the University of Connecticut, Hartford, said that weight-based discrimination can occur whatever a person’s size or body shape, but it’s most often targeted at youth who are overweight or obese.
These children and teens commonly face teasing, harassment, cyberbullying, physical aggression, and social bullying from peers, coaches, teachers, and even parents, Dr. Puhl told attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Common beliefs about overweight people – that they have little self discipline or poor eating and activity habits – only perpetuate stereotypes, she said. Common stereotypes are that people with obesity are noncompliant, lazy, sloppy, unsuccessful, unintelligent, dishonest, and awkward.
And health professionals of every type have been found to harbor these biases. In one study of more than 4,000 first-year medical students, well over half the respondents revealed explicit (74%) and implicit (67%) weight bias (Obesity. 2014 Apr;22[4]:1201-8). The study also found that explicit weight bias was stronger than explicit bias against blacks, Hispanics, LGBTQ people, and poor people.
Know the effects of weight stigma
Far from a minor issue, the discrimination that begins in childhood against those who are overweight can have a long-lasting impact on their future prospects and mental health. Being overweight is overwhelmingly cited as the most common reason for bullying (Pediatr Obes. 2016 Aug;11[4]:241-50). Dr. Puhl described to attendees how weight bias shifts throughout a lifetime, beginning as early as preschool. In childhood, the stereotypes about being overweight worsen, and the teasing and bullying increase. By adolescence, this treatment affects teens’ psychological, social, and physical well-being. It then translates in adulthood into reduced opportunities in employment and education, and poorer access and treatment in health care.
The mental distress caused by weight bullying often takes the form of depression, anxiety, and substance use, Dr. Puhl said, and children’s academic success can be hampered by bullying about their weight. One study found a higher risk of poor grades and school avoidance with each additional teasing incident (J Youth Adolesc. 2012 Jan;41[1]:27-40).
Weight stigma also can contribute to more weight gain, obesity, and lower physical activity levels. Maladaptive eating behaviors can result from weight stigmatization as well: binge eating, emotional eating, increased consumption in general, and other eating disorders. Severe binge eating is 80% more likely among teens who are bullied about their weight, Dr. Puhl said, and the risk increases with increased frequency and types of bullying.
Children who are teased about their weight often become less willing to engage in physical activity, she noted. They may skip gym class, feel less competent about physical activity, and end up enjoying sports participation less.
Further, sexual- and gender-minority youth report high rates of weight-related teasing from friends and family regardless of their body mass index (BMI) percentile, Dr. Puhl emphasized. Researchers have found bullying about weight in this population linked to dieting, difficulty sleeping, high stress levels, binge drinking, smoking, and marijuana use.
Know how to combat weight bias
Dr. Puhl described strategies for reducing weight bias based on clinical practice recommendations in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statement entitled “Stigma Experienced by Children and Adolescents With Obesity” (Pediatrics. 2017 Dec;140[6]:e20173034).
Be aware. Consider how personal assumptions and attitudes about weight can affect your body language, tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, eye contact (or lack thereof), and spatial distance from the patient.
Recognizing the biological, genetic, and environmental causes of obesity can reduce stigma and improve understanding of the complexity of obesity etiology. It’s also important that you help parents understand this complexity and the negative impact of weight stigma.
Consider language and word choice. “Carefully consider language that might unintentionally communicate bias, blame, or negative judgment,” Dr. Puhl told attendees. “Use language that is supportive and empowering.”
Terms such as “unhealthy weight” and “high BMI” are less stigmatizing than “fat” and “morbidly obese” to parents, she said, and research has found nearly a quarter of parents would avoid future doctor appointments if their child’s doctor used stigmatizing terms to discuss weight (Pediatrics. 2011 Oct;128[4]:e786-93).
Teens themselves may have diverse preferences for the language used. Start by asking: “Could we talk about your weight today?” and then follow up by directly asking, “what words would you feel most comfortable with as we talk about your weight?”
Person-first language – such as “person with obesity” instead of “obese person” also is important to reducing stigma, she said.
It’s normal for you to feel uneasy about bringing up weight with patients, so Dr. Puhl recommended you practice dialogue out loud.
“Acknowledge your strengths,” she said. “You already have the skills and experience of engaging in difficult conversations with patients and families on a range of other health issues,” so apply that in this context as well.
Screen for negative experiences that could indicate weight-based bullying. These could include teasing and bullying, low self-esteem, poor school performance, depression, and anxiety.
“Remember that weight-based victimization can occur at diverse body sizes, not just in youth with obesity,” Dr. Puhl said. If you discover your patient is experiencing weight-related bullying, determine whether they have a support system in place and whether a mental health referral is appropriate. Provide or refer for behavior change counseling with motivational interviewing and patient-centered, empathic approaches. Parents should be aware of the issue and should contact the child’s teachers and school administration to help address it.
But before you do that, keep in mind that it’s not just peers doing the bullying. According to a study of teens with obesity enrolled in a national weight-loss camp, 37% of teen participants in 2012 said that their parents bully them (Pediatrics. 2013 Jan;131[1]:e1-9).
You should assess whether family interactions or the parents’ own history with weight is involved. If parents make disparaging comments about their child’s weight, “use this as an opportunity to model appropriate language and educate parents about weight bias,” Dr. Puhl said.
It’s also important to realize that parents themselves often are frustrated, so critical comments about their language or approach can backfire, she warned. Instead, help parents understand how to create a home setting that encourages healthy food choices, praises children for healthy decision making, and models positive health behaviors. It is key for them to focus on improving their children’s health behaviors rather than focusing on weight.
And before you contact the school, remember teachers also are common perpetrators of weight stigma, Dr. Puhl noted. She gave as an example a study in which investigators assessed 133 teachers’ perceptions of middle or high school students’ abilities based on photos that had been digitally altered to show each girl both as average weight or as overweight. Each photo was associated with an essay specifically chosen because it was neither particularly good nor bad (Brit J Educ Psychol. 2019 Oct 26. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12322). The teachers judged the essays believed to be submitted by overweight girls to be “similar in structural quality,” but they gave the overweight girls lower grades than the average-weight girls. They also indicated that they considered the overweight girls “put forth more effort, needed more remedial assistance, and had lower overall grades in school.” The teachers also rated other teachers’ weight bias to be at a low level, and their own weight bias to be “significantly lower” than the others.
Assess your clinical environment. Be aware of your clinical environment and whether it meets the needs of youth with diverse body sizes. That includes having a range of sturdy armless seating options and adequately sized doorways, hallways, and restrooms. You also should have beds, wheelchairs, and exam tables with adequate weight capacity. Also check that you have supplies, such as robes or blood pressure cuffs, on hand for a variety of body sizes.
NEW ORLEANS – and support your patients regardless of weight.
Rebecca Puhl, PhD, a deputy director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at the University of Connecticut, Hartford, said that weight-based discrimination can occur whatever a person’s size or body shape, but it’s most often targeted at youth who are overweight or obese.
These children and teens commonly face teasing, harassment, cyberbullying, physical aggression, and social bullying from peers, coaches, teachers, and even parents, Dr. Puhl told attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Common beliefs about overweight people – that they have little self discipline or poor eating and activity habits – only perpetuate stereotypes, she said. Common stereotypes are that people with obesity are noncompliant, lazy, sloppy, unsuccessful, unintelligent, dishonest, and awkward.
And health professionals of every type have been found to harbor these biases. In one study of more than 4,000 first-year medical students, well over half the respondents revealed explicit (74%) and implicit (67%) weight bias (Obesity. 2014 Apr;22[4]:1201-8). The study also found that explicit weight bias was stronger than explicit bias against blacks, Hispanics, LGBTQ people, and poor people.
Know the effects of weight stigma
Far from a minor issue, the discrimination that begins in childhood against those who are overweight can have a long-lasting impact on their future prospects and mental health. Being overweight is overwhelmingly cited as the most common reason for bullying (Pediatr Obes. 2016 Aug;11[4]:241-50). Dr. Puhl described to attendees how weight bias shifts throughout a lifetime, beginning as early as preschool. In childhood, the stereotypes about being overweight worsen, and the teasing and bullying increase. By adolescence, this treatment affects teens’ psychological, social, and physical well-being. It then translates in adulthood into reduced opportunities in employment and education, and poorer access and treatment in health care.
The mental distress caused by weight bullying often takes the form of depression, anxiety, and substance use, Dr. Puhl said, and children’s academic success can be hampered by bullying about their weight. One study found a higher risk of poor grades and school avoidance with each additional teasing incident (J Youth Adolesc. 2012 Jan;41[1]:27-40).
Weight stigma also can contribute to more weight gain, obesity, and lower physical activity levels. Maladaptive eating behaviors can result from weight stigmatization as well: binge eating, emotional eating, increased consumption in general, and other eating disorders. Severe binge eating is 80% more likely among teens who are bullied about their weight, Dr. Puhl said, and the risk increases with increased frequency and types of bullying.
Children who are teased about their weight often become less willing to engage in physical activity, she noted. They may skip gym class, feel less competent about physical activity, and end up enjoying sports participation less.
Further, sexual- and gender-minority youth report high rates of weight-related teasing from friends and family regardless of their body mass index (BMI) percentile, Dr. Puhl emphasized. Researchers have found bullying about weight in this population linked to dieting, difficulty sleeping, high stress levels, binge drinking, smoking, and marijuana use.
Know how to combat weight bias
Dr. Puhl described strategies for reducing weight bias based on clinical practice recommendations in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statement entitled “Stigma Experienced by Children and Adolescents With Obesity” (Pediatrics. 2017 Dec;140[6]:e20173034).
Be aware. Consider how personal assumptions and attitudes about weight can affect your body language, tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, eye contact (or lack thereof), and spatial distance from the patient.
Recognizing the biological, genetic, and environmental causes of obesity can reduce stigma and improve understanding of the complexity of obesity etiology. It’s also important that you help parents understand this complexity and the negative impact of weight stigma.
Consider language and word choice. “Carefully consider language that might unintentionally communicate bias, blame, or negative judgment,” Dr. Puhl told attendees. “Use language that is supportive and empowering.”
Terms such as “unhealthy weight” and “high BMI” are less stigmatizing than “fat” and “morbidly obese” to parents, she said, and research has found nearly a quarter of parents would avoid future doctor appointments if their child’s doctor used stigmatizing terms to discuss weight (Pediatrics. 2011 Oct;128[4]:e786-93).
Teens themselves may have diverse preferences for the language used. Start by asking: “Could we talk about your weight today?” and then follow up by directly asking, “what words would you feel most comfortable with as we talk about your weight?”
Person-first language – such as “person with obesity” instead of “obese person” also is important to reducing stigma, she said.
It’s normal for you to feel uneasy about bringing up weight with patients, so Dr. Puhl recommended you practice dialogue out loud.
“Acknowledge your strengths,” she said. “You already have the skills and experience of engaging in difficult conversations with patients and families on a range of other health issues,” so apply that in this context as well.
Screen for negative experiences that could indicate weight-based bullying. These could include teasing and bullying, low self-esteem, poor school performance, depression, and anxiety.
“Remember that weight-based victimization can occur at diverse body sizes, not just in youth with obesity,” Dr. Puhl said. If you discover your patient is experiencing weight-related bullying, determine whether they have a support system in place and whether a mental health referral is appropriate. Provide or refer for behavior change counseling with motivational interviewing and patient-centered, empathic approaches. Parents should be aware of the issue and should contact the child’s teachers and school administration to help address it.
But before you do that, keep in mind that it’s not just peers doing the bullying. According to a study of teens with obesity enrolled in a national weight-loss camp, 37% of teen participants in 2012 said that their parents bully them (Pediatrics. 2013 Jan;131[1]:e1-9).
You should assess whether family interactions or the parents’ own history with weight is involved. If parents make disparaging comments about their child’s weight, “use this as an opportunity to model appropriate language and educate parents about weight bias,” Dr. Puhl said.
It’s also important to realize that parents themselves often are frustrated, so critical comments about their language or approach can backfire, she warned. Instead, help parents understand how to create a home setting that encourages healthy food choices, praises children for healthy decision making, and models positive health behaviors. It is key for them to focus on improving their children’s health behaviors rather than focusing on weight.
And before you contact the school, remember teachers also are common perpetrators of weight stigma, Dr. Puhl noted. She gave as an example a study in which investigators assessed 133 teachers’ perceptions of middle or high school students’ abilities based on photos that had been digitally altered to show each girl both as average weight or as overweight. Each photo was associated with an essay specifically chosen because it was neither particularly good nor bad (Brit J Educ Psychol. 2019 Oct 26. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12322). The teachers judged the essays believed to be submitted by overweight girls to be “similar in structural quality,” but they gave the overweight girls lower grades than the average-weight girls. They also indicated that they considered the overweight girls “put forth more effort, needed more remedial assistance, and had lower overall grades in school.” The teachers also rated other teachers’ weight bias to be at a low level, and their own weight bias to be “significantly lower” than the others.
Assess your clinical environment. Be aware of your clinical environment and whether it meets the needs of youth with diverse body sizes. That includes having a range of sturdy armless seating options and adequately sized doorways, hallways, and restrooms. You also should have beds, wheelchairs, and exam tables with adequate weight capacity. Also check that you have supplies, such as robes or blood pressure cuffs, on hand for a variety of body sizes.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM AAP 19
What to do when stimulants fail for ADHD
NEW ORLEANS – A variety of reasons can contribute to the failure of stimulants to treat ADHD in children, such as comorbidities, missed diagnoses, inadequate medication dosage, side effects, major life changes, and other factors in the home or school environments, said Alison Schonwald, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Stimulant medications indicated for ADHD usually work in 70%-75% of school-age children, but that leaves one in four children whose condition can be more challenging to treat, she said.
“Look around you,” Dr. Schonwald told a packed room at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “You’re not the only one struggling with this topic.” She sprinkled her presentation with case studies of patients with ADHD for whom stimulants weren’t working, examples that the audience clearly found familiar.
The three steps you already know to do with treatment-resistant children sound simple: assess the child for factors linked to their poor response; develop a new treatment plan; and use Food and Drug Administration-approved nonstimulant medications, including off-label options, in a new plan.
But in the office, the process can be anything but simple when you must consider school and family environments, comorbidities, and other factors potentially complicating the child’s ability to function well.
Comorbidities
To start, Dr. Schonwald provided a chart of common coexisting problems in children with ADHD that included the recommended assessment and intervention:
- Mood and self-esteem issues call for the depression section of the patient health questionnaire (PHQ9) and Moods and Feelings questionnaire (MFQ), followed by interventions such as individual and peer group therapy and exercise.
- Anxiety can be assessed with the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED) and Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale, then treated similarly to mood and self-esteem issues.
- Bullying or trauma require taking a history during an interview, and treatment with individual and peer group therapy.
- Substance abuse should be assessed with the CRAFFT screening tool (Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble) and Screening to Brief Intervention (S2BI) Tool, then treated according to best practices.
- Executive function, low cognitive abilities, and poor adaptive skills require a review of the child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) testing, followed by personalized school and home interventions.
- Poor social skills, assessed in an interview, also require personalized interventions at home and in school.
Doctors also may need to consider other common comorbidities in children with ADHD, such as bipolar disorder, depression, learning disabilities, oppositional defiant disorder, and tic disorders.
Tic disorders typically have an onset around 7 years old and peak in midadolescence, declining in late teen years. An estimated 35%-90% of children with Tourette syndrome have ADHD, Dr. Schonwald said (Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006 Jul;48[7]:616-21).
Managing treatment with stimulants
A common dosage amount for stimulants is 2.5-5 mg, but that dose may be too low for children, Dr. Schonwald said. She recommended increasing it until an effect is seen and stopping at the effective dose level the child can tolerate. The maximum recommended by the FDA is 60 mg/day for short-acting stimulants and 72 mg/day for extended-release ones, but some research has shown dosage can go even higher without causing toxic effects (J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2010 Feb;20[1]:49-54).
Dr. Schonwald also suggested trying both methylphenidate and amphetamine medication, while recognizing the latter tends to have more stimulant-related side effects.
Adherence is another consideration because multiple studies show high rates of noncompliance or discontinuation, such as up to 19% discontinuation for long-acting and 38% for short-acting stimulants (J Clin Psychiatry. 2015 Nov;76(11):e1459-68; Postgrad Med. 2012 May;124(3):139-48). A study of a school cohort in Philadelphia found only about one in five children were adherent (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011 May;50[5]:480-9).
One potential solution to adherence challenges are pill reminder smartphone apps, such as Medisafe Medication Management, Pill Reminder-All in One, MyTherapy: Medication Reminder, and CareZone.
Dr. Schonwald noted several factors that can influence children’s response to stimulants. Among children with comorbid intellectual disability, for example, the response rate is lower than the average 75% of children without the disability, hovering around 40%-50% (Res Dev Disabil. 2018 Dec;83:217-32). Those who get more sleep tend to have improved attention, compared with children with less sleep (Atten Defic Hyperact Disord. 2017 Mar;9[1]:31-38).
She also offered strategies to manage problematic adverse effects from stimulants. Those experiencing weight loss can take their stimulant after breakfast, drink whole milk, and consider taking drug holidays.
To reduce stomachaches, children should take their medication with food, and you should look at whether the child is taking the lowest effective dose they can and whether anxiety may be involved. Similarly, children with headaches should take stimulants with food, and you should look at the dosage and ask whether the patient is getting adequate sleep.
Strategies to address difficulty falling asleep can include taking the stimulant earlier in the day or switching to a shorter-acting form, dexmethylphenidate, or another stimulant. If they’re having trouble staying asleep, inquire about sleep hygiene, and look for associations with other factors that might explain why the child is experiencing new problems with staying asleep. If these strategies are unsuccessful, you can consider prescribing melatonin or clonidine.
Alternatives to stimulants
Several medications besides stimulants are available to prescribe to children with ADHD if they aren’t responding adequately to stimulants, Dr. Schonwald said.
Atomoxetine performed better than placebo in treatment studies, with similar weight loss effects, albeit the lowest mean effect size in clinician ratings (Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Sep;5[9]:727-38). Dr. Schonwald recommended starting atomoxetine in children under 40 kg at 0.5 mg/kg for 4 days, then increasing to 1.2 mg/kg/day. For children over 40 kg, the dose can start at 40 mg. Maximum dose can range from 1.4 to 1.8 mg/kg or 100 mg/day.
About 7% of white children and 2% of African American children are poor metabolizers of atomoxetine, and the drug has interactions with dextromethorphan, fluoxetine, and paroxetine, she noted. Side effects can include abdominal pain, dry mouth, fatigue, mood swings, nausea, and vomiting.
Two alpha-adrenergics that you can consider are clonidine and guanfacine. Clonidine, a hypotensive drug given at a dose of 0.05-0.2 mg up to three times a day, is helpful for hyperactivity and impulsivity rather than attention difficulties. Side effects can include depression, headache, rebound hypertension, and sedation, and it’s only FDA approved for ages 12 years and older.
An extended release version of clonidine (Kapvay) is approved for monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for ADHD; it led to improvements in ADHD–Rating Scale-IV scores as soon as the second week in an 8-week randomized controlled trial. Mild to moderate somnolence was the most common adverse event, and changes on electrocardiograms were minor (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011 Feb;50[2]:171-9).
Guanfacine, also a hypotensive drug, given at a dose of 0.5-2 mg up to three times a day, has fewer data about its use for ADHD but appears to treat attention problems more effectively than hyperactivity. Also approved only for ages 12 years and older, guanfacine is less sedating, and its side effects can include agitation, headache , and insomnia. An extended-release version of guanfacine (brand name Intuniv) showed statistically significant reductions in ADHD Rating Scale-IV scores in a 9-week, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Side effects including fatigue, sedation, and somnolence occurred in the first 2 weeks but generally resolved, and participants returned to baseline during dose maintenance and tapering (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009 Feb;48[2]:155-65).
Intuniv doses should start at 1 mg/day and increase no more than 1 mg/week, Dr. Schonwald said, until reaching a maintenance dose of 1-4 mg once daily, depending on the patient’s clinical response and tolerability. Children also must be able to swallow the pill whole.
Treating preschoolers
Preschool children are particularly difficult to diagnose given their normal range of temperament and development, Dr. Schonwald said. Their symptoms could be resulting from another diagnosis or from circumstances in the environment.
You should consider potential comorbidities and whether the child’s symptoms are situational or pervasive. About 55% of preschoolers have at least one comorbidity, she said (Infants & Young Children. 2006 Apr-Jun;19[2]:109-122.)
That said, stimulants usually are effective in very young children whose primary concern is ADHD. In a randomized controlled trial of 303 preschoolers, significantly more children experienced reduced ADHD symptoms with methylphenidate than with placebo. The trial’s “data suggest that preschoolers with ADHD need to start with low methylphenidate doses. Treatment may best begin using methylphenidate–immediate release at 2.5 mg twice daily, and then be increased to 7.5 mg three times a day during the course of 1 week. The mean optimal total daily [methylphenidate] dose for preschoolers was 14.2 plus or minus 8.1 mg/day” (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2006 Nov;45[11]:1284-93).
In treating preschoolers, if the patient’s symptoms appear to get worse after starting a stimulant, you can consider a medication change. If symptoms are much worse, consider a lower dose or a different stimulant class, or whether the diagnosis is appropriate.
Five common components of poor behavior in preschoolers with ADHD include agitation, anxiety, explosively, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. If these issues are occurring throughout the day, consider reducing the dose or switching drug classes.
If it’s only occurring in the morning, Dr. Schonwald said, optimize the morning structure and consider giving the medication earlier in the morning or adding a short-acting booster. If it’s occurring in late afternoon, consider a booster and reducing high-demand activities for the child.
If a preschooler experiences some benefit from the stimulant but still has problems, adjunctive atomoxetine or an alpha adrenergic may help. Those medications also are recommended if the child has no benefit with the stimulant or cannot tolerate the lowest therapeutic dose.
Dr. Schonwald said she had no relevant financial disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – A variety of reasons can contribute to the failure of stimulants to treat ADHD in children, such as comorbidities, missed diagnoses, inadequate medication dosage, side effects, major life changes, and other factors in the home or school environments, said Alison Schonwald, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Stimulant medications indicated for ADHD usually work in 70%-75% of school-age children, but that leaves one in four children whose condition can be more challenging to treat, she said.
“Look around you,” Dr. Schonwald told a packed room at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “You’re not the only one struggling with this topic.” She sprinkled her presentation with case studies of patients with ADHD for whom stimulants weren’t working, examples that the audience clearly found familiar.
The three steps you already know to do with treatment-resistant children sound simple: assess the child for factors linked to their poor response; develop a new treatment plan; and use Food and Drug Administration-approved nonstimulant medications, including off-label options, in a new plan.
But in the office, the process can be anything but simple when you must consider school and family environments, comorbidities, and other factors potentially complicating the child’s ability to function well.
Comorbidities
To start, Dr. Schonwald provided a chart of common coexisting problems in children with ADHD that included the recommended assessment and intervention:
- Mood and self-esteem issues call for the depression section of the patient health questionnaire (PHQ9) and Moods and Feelings questionnaire (MFQ), followed by interventions such as individual and peer group therapy and exercise.
- Anxiety can be assessed with the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED) and Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale, then treated similarly to mood and self-esteem issues.
- Bullying or trauma require taking a history during an interview, and treatment with individual and peer group therapy.
- Substance abuse should be assessed with the CRAFFT screening tool (Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble) and Screening to Brief Intervention (S2BI) Tool, then treated according to best practices.
- Executive function, low cognitive abilities, and poor adaptive skills require a review of the child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) testing, followed by personalized school and home interventions.
- Poor social skills, assessed in an interview, also require personalized interventions at home and in school.
Doctors also may need to consider other common comorbidities in children with ADHD, such as bipolar disorder, depression, learning disabilities, oppositional defiant disorder, and tic disorders.
Tic disorders typically have an onset around 7 years old and peak in midadolescence, declining in late teen years. An estimated 35%-90% of children with Tourette syndrome have ADHD, Dr. Schonwald said (Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006 Jul;48[7]:616-21).
Managing treatment with stimulants
A common dosage amount for stimulants is 2.5-5 mg, but that dose may be too low for children, Dr. Schonwald said. She recommended increasing it until an effect is seen and stopping at the effective dose level the child can tolerate. The maximum recommended by the FDA is 60 mg/day for short-acting stimulants and 72 mg/day for extended-release ones, but some research has shown dosage can go even higher without causing toxic effects (J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2010 Feb;20[1]:49-54).
Dr. Schonwald also suggested trying both methylphenidate and amphetamine medication, while recognizing the latter tends to have more stimulant-related side effects.
Adherence is another consideration because multiple studies show high rates of noncompliance or discontinuation, such as up to 19% discontinuation for long-acting and 38% for short-acting stimulants (J Clin Psychiatry. 2015 Nov;76(11):e1459-68; Postgrad Med. 2012 May;124(3):139-48). A study of a school cohort in Philadelphia found only about one in five children were adherent (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011 May;50[5]:480-9).
One potential solution to adherence challenges are pill reminder smartphone apps, such as Medisafe Medication Management, Pill Reminder-All in One, MyTherapy: Medication Reminder, and CareZone.
Dr. Schonwald noted several factors that can influence children’s response to stimulants. Among children with comorbid intellectual disability, for example, the response rate is lower than the average 75% of children without the disability, hovering around 40%-50% (Res Dev Disabil. 2018 Dec;83:217-32). Those who get more sleep tend to have improved attention, compared with children with less sleep (Atten Defic Hyperact Disord. 2017 Mar;9[1]:31-38).
She also offered strategies to manage problematic adverse effects from stimulants. Those experiencing weight loss can take their stimulant after breakfast, drink whole milk, and consider taking drug holidays.
To reduce stomachaches, children should take their medication with food, and you should look at whether the child is taking the lowest effective dose they can and whether anxiety may be involved. Similarly, children with headaches should take stimulants with food, and you should look at the dosage and ask whether the patient is getting adequate sleep.
Strategies to address difficulty falling asleep can include taking the stimulant earlier in the day or switching to a shorter-acting form, dexmethylphenidate, or another stimulant. If they’re having trouble staying asleep, inquire about sleep hygiene, and look for associations with other factors that might explain why the child is experiencing new problems with staying asleep. If these strategies are unsuccessful, you can consider prescribing melatonin or clonidine.
Alternatives to stimulants
Several medications besides stimulants are available to prescribe to children with ADHD if they aren’t responding adequately to stimulants, Dr. Schonwald said.
Atomoxetine performed better than placebo in treatment studies, with similar weight loss effects, albeit the lowest mean effect size in clinician ratings (Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Sep;5[9]:727-38). Dr. Schonwald recommended starting atomoxetine in children under 40 kg at 0.5 mg/kg for 4 days, then increasing to 1.2 mg/kg/day. For children over 40 kg, the dose can start at 40 mg. Maximum dose can range from 1.4 to 1.8 mg/kg or 100 mg/day.
About 7% of white children and 2% of African American children are poor metabolizers of atomoxetine, and the drug has interactions with dextromethorphan, fluoxetine, and paroxetine, she noted. Side effects can include abdominal pain, dry mouth, fatigue, mood swings, nausea, and vomiting.
Two alpha-adrenergics that you can consider are clonidine and guanfacine. Clonidine, a hypotensive drug given at a dose of 0.05-0.2 mg up to three times a day, is helpful for hyperactivity and impulsivity rather than attention difficulties. Side effects can include depression, headache, rebound hypertension, and sedation, and it’s only FDA approved for ages 12 years and older.
An extended release version of clonidine (Kapvay) is approved for monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for ADHD; it led to improvements in ADHD–Rating Scale-IV scores as soon as the second week in an 8-week randomized controlled trial. Mild to moderate somnolence was the most common adverse event, and changes on electrocardiograms were minor (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011 Feb;50[2]:171-9).
Guanfacine, also a hypotensive drug, given at a dose of 0.5-2 mg up to three times a day, has fewer data about its use for ADHD but appears to treat attention problems more effectively than hyperactivity. Also approved only for ages 12 years and older, guanfacine is less sedating, and its side effects can include agitation, headache , and insomnia. An extended-release version of guanfacine (brand name Intuniv) showed statistically significant reductions in ADHD Rating Scale-IV scores in a 9-week, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Side effects including fatigue, sedation, and somnolence occurred in the first 2 weeks but generally resolved, and participants returned to baseline during dose maintenance and tapering (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009 Feb;48[2]:155-65).
Intuniv doses should start at 1 mg/day and increase no more than 1 mg/week, Dr. Schonwald said, until reaching a maintenance dose of 1-4 mg once daily, depending on the patient’s clinical response and tolerability. Children also must be able to swallow the pill whole.
Treating preschoolers
Preschool children are particularly difficult to diagnose given their normal range of temperament and development, Dr. Schonwald said. Their symptoms could be resulting from another diagnosis or from circumstances in the environment.
You should consider potential comorbidities and whether the child’s symptoms are situational or pervasive. About 55% of preschoolers have at least one comorbidity, she said (Infants & Young Children. 2006 Apr-Jun;19[2]:109-122.)
That said, stimulants usually are effective in very young children whose primary concern is ADHD. In a randomized controlled trial of 303 preschoolers, significantly more children experienced reduced ADHD symptoms with methylphenidate than with placebo. The trial’s “data suggest that preschoolers with ADHD need to start with low methylphenidate doses. Treatment may best begin using methylphenidate–immediate release at 2.5 mg twice daily, and then be increased to 7.5 mg three times a day during the course of 1 week. The mean optimal total daily [methylphenidate] dose for preschoolers was 14.2 plus or minus 8.1 mg/day” (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2006 Nov;45[11]:1284-93).
In treating preschoolers, if the patient’s symptoms appear to get worse after starting a stimulant, you can consider a medication change. If symptoms are much worse, consider a lower dose or a different stimulant class, or whether the diagnosis is appropriate.
Five common components of poor behavior in preschoolers with ADHD include agitation, anxiety, explosively, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. If these issues are occurring throughout the day, consider reducing the dose or switching drug classes.
If it’s only occurring in the morning, Dr. Schonwald said, optimize the morning structure and consider giving the medication earlier in the morning or adding a short-acting booster. If it’s occurring in late afternoon, consider a booster and reducing high-demand activities for the child.
If a preschooler experiences some benefit from the stimulant but still has problems, adjunctive atomoxetine or an alpha adrenergic may help. Those medications also are recommended if the child has no benefit with the stimulant or cannot tolerate the lowest therapeutic dose.
Dr. Schonwald said she had no relevant financial disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – A variety of reasons can contribute to the failure of stimulants to treat ADHD in children, such as comorbidities, missed diagnoses, inadequate medication dosage, side effects, major life changes, and other factors in the home or school environments, said Alison Schonwald, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Stimulant medications indicated for ADHD usually work in 70%-75% of school-age children, but that leaves one in four children whose condition can be more challenging to treat, she said.
“Look around you,” Dr. Schonwald told a packed room at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “You’re not the only one struggling with this topic.” She sprinkled her presentation with case studies of patients with ADHD for whom stimulants weren’t working, examples that the audience clearly found familiar.
The three steps you already know to do with treatment-resistant children sound simple: assess the child for factors linked to their poor response; develop a new treatment plan; and use Food and Drug Administration-approved nonstimulant medications, including off-label options, in a new plan.
But in the office, the process can be anything but simple when you must consider school and family environments, comorbidities, and other factors potentially complicating the child’s ability to function well.
Comorbidities
To start, Dr. Schonwald provided a chart of common coexisting problems in children with ADHD that included the recommended assessment and intervention:
- Mood and self-esteem issues call for the depression section of the patient health questionnaire (PHQ9) and Moods and Feelings questionnaire (MFQ), followed by interventions such as individual and peer group therapy and exercise.
- Anxiety can be assessed with the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED) and Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale, then treated similarly to mood and self-esteem issues.
- Bullying or trauma require taking a history during an interview, and treatment with individual and peer group therapy.
- Substance abuse should be assessed with the CRAFFT screening tool (Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble) and Screening to Brief Intervention (S2BI) Tool, then treated according to best practices.
- Executive function, low cognitive abilities, and poor adaptive skills require a review of the child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) testing, followed by personalized school and home interventions.
- Poor social skills, assessed in an interview, also require personalized interventions at home and in school.
Doctors also may need to consider other common comorbidities in children with ADHD, such as bipolar disorder, depression, learning disabilities, oppositional defiant disorder, and tic disorders.
Tic disorders typically have an onset around 7 years old and peak in midadolescence, declining in late teen years. An estimated 35%-90% of children with Tourette syndrome have ADHD, Dr. Schonwald said (Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006 Jul;48[7]:616-21).
Managing treatment with stimulants
A common dosage amount for stimulants is 2.5-5 mg, but that dose may be too low for children, Dr. Schonwald said. She recommended increasing it until an effect is seen and stopping at the effective dose level the child can tolerate. The maximum recommended by the FDA is 60 mg/day for short-acting stimulants and 72 mg/day for extended-release ones, but some research has shown dosage can go even higher without causing toxic effects (J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2010 Feb;20[1]:49-54).
Dr. Schonwald also suggested trying both methylphenidate and amphetamine medication, while recognizing the latter tends to have more stimulant-related side effects.
Adherence is another consideration because multiple studies show high rates of noncompliance or discontinuation, such as up to 19% discontinuation for long-acting and 38% for short-acting stimulants (J Clin Psychiatry. 2015 Nov;76(11):e1459-68; Postgrad Med. 2012 May;124(3):139-48). A study of a school cohort in Philadelphia found only about one in five children were adherent (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011 May;50[5]:480-9).
One potential solution to adherence challenges are pill reminder smartphone apps, such as Medisafe Medication Management, Pill Reminder-All in One, MyTherapy: Medication Reminder, and CareZone.
Dr. Schonwald noted several factors that can influence children’s response to stimulants. Among children with comorbid intellectual disability, for example, the response rate is lower than the average 75% of children without the disability, hovering around 40%-50% (Res Dev Disabil. 2018 Dec;83:217-32). Those who get more sleep tend to have improved attention, compared with children with less sleep (Atten Defic Hyperact Disord. 2017 Mar;9[1]:31-38).
She also offered strategies to manage problematic adverse effects from stimulants. Those experiencing weight loss can take their stimulant after breakfast, drink whole milk, and consider taking drug holidays.
To reduce stomachaches, children should take their medication with food, and you should look at whether the child is taking the lowest effective dose they can and whether anxiety may be involved. Similarly, children with headaches should take stimulants with food, and you should look at the dosage and ask whether the patient is getting adequate sleep.
Strategies to address difficulty falling asleep can include taking the stimulant earlier in the day or switching to a shorter-acting form, dexmethylphenidate, or another stimulant. If they’re having trouble staying asleep, inquire about sleep hygiene, and look for associations with other factors that might explain why the child is experiencing new problems with staying asleep. If these strategies are unsuccessful, you can consider prescribing melatonin or clonidine.
Alternatives to stimulants
Several medications besides stimulants are available to prescribe to children with ADHD if they aren’t responding adequately to stimulants, Dr. Schonwald said.
Atomoxetine performed better than placebo in treatment studies, with similar weight loss effects, albeit the lowest mean effect size in clinician ratings (Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Sep;5[9]:727-38). Dr. Schonwald recommended starting atomoxetine in children under 40 kg at 0.5 mg/kg for 4 days, then increasing to 1.2 mg/kg/day. For children over 40 kg, the dose can start at 40 mg. Maximum dose can range from 1.4 to 1.8 mg/kg or 100 mg/day.
About 7% of white children and 2% of African American children are poor metabolizers of atomoxetine, and the drug has interactions with dextromethorphan, fluoxetine, and paroxetine, she noted. Side effects can include abdominal pain, dry mouth, fatigue, mood swings, nausea, and vomiting.
Two alpha-adrenergics that you can consider are clonidine and guanfacine. Clonidine, a hypotensive drug given at a dose of 0.05-0.2 mg up to three times a day, is helpful for hyperactivity and impulsivity rather than attention difficulties. Side effects can include depression, headache, rebound hypertension, and sedation, and it’s only FDA approved for ages 12 years and older.
An extended release version of clonidine (Kapvay) is approved for monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for ADHD; it led to improvements in ADHD–Rating Scale-IV scores as soon as the second week in an 8-week randomized controlled trial. Mild to moderate somnolence was the most common adverse event, and changes on electrocardiograms were minor (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011 Feb;50[2]:171-9).
Guanfacine, also a hypotensive drug, given at a dose of 0.5-2 mg up to three times a day, has fewer data about its use for ADHD but appears to treat attention problems more effectively than hyperactivity. Also approved only for ages 12 years and older, guanfacine is less sedating, and its side effects can include agitation, headache , and insomnia. An extended-release version of guanfacine (brand name Intuniv) showed statistically significant reductions in ADHD Rating Scale-IV scores in a 9-week, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Side effects including fatigue, sedation, and somnolence occurred in the first 2 weeks but generally resolved, and participants returned to baseline during dose maintenance and tapering (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009 Feb;48[2]:155-65).
Intuniv doses should start at 1 mg/day and increase no more than 1 mg/week, Dr. Schonwald said, until reaching a maintenance dose of 1-4 mg once daily, depending on the patient’s clinical response and tolerability. Children also must be able to swallow the pill whole.
Treating preschoolers
Preschool children are particularly difficult to diagnose given their normal range of temperament and development, Dr. Schonwald said. Their symptoms could be resulting from another diagnosis or from circumstances in the environment.
You should consider potential comorbidities and whether the child’s symptoms are situational or pervasive. About 55% of preschoolers have at least one comorbidity, she said (Infants & Young Children. 2006 Apr-Jun;19[2]:109-122.)
That said, stimulants usually are effective in very young children whose primary concern is ADHD. In a randomized controlled trial of 303 preschoolers, significantly more children experienced reduced ADHD symptoms with methylphenidate than with placebo. The trial’s “data suggest that preschoolers with ADHD need to start with low methylphenidate doses. Treatment may best begin using methylphenidate–immediate release at 2.5 mg twice daily, and then be increased to 7.5 mg three times a day during the course of 1 week. The mean optimal total daily [methylphenidate] dose for preschoolers was 14.2 plus or minus 8.1 mg/day” (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2006 Nov;45[11]:1284-93).
In treating preschoolers, if the patient’s symptoms appear to get worse after starting a stimulant, you can consider a medication change. If symptoms are much worse, consider a lower dose or a different stimulant class, or whether the diagnosis is appropriate.
Five common components of poor behavior in preschoolers with ADHD include agitation, anxiety, explosively, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. If these issues are occurring throughout the day, consider reducing the dose or switching drug classes.
If it’s only occurring in the morning, Dr. Schonwald said, optimize the morning structure and consider giving the medication earlier in the morning or adding a short-acting booster. If it’s occurring in late afternoon, consider a booster and reducing high-demand activities for the child.
If a preschooler experiences some benefit from the stimulant but still has problems, adjunctive atomoxetine or an alpha adrenergic may help. Those medications also are recommended if the child has no benefit with the stimulant or cannot tolerate the lowest therapeutic dose.
Dr. Schonwald said she had no relevant financial disclosures.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM AAP 2019
Get familiar with evidence on these supplements
NEW ORLEANS – With more than 10% of children receiving complementary or alternative medicine (CAM), you should be familiar with what does and doesn’t work when it comes to using supplements for various medical issues, said Cora Breuner, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and attending physician at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
Dr. Breuner presented an overview of more than a dozen popular supplements with their uses and evidence at the American Academy of Pediatrics annual meeting. Most of the evidence comes from studies in adults, not children, and the evidence overall is sometimes scant, but it can guide physicians in discussing options with parents interested in CAM.
Butterbur
This root primarily is used to treat migraines via anti-inflammatory effects. The ideal dose is 50-75 mg daily in 2-3 divided doses for children aged 8-9 years and 100-150 mg daily in 2-3 divided doses for those aged 10 and older (Headache. 2005 Mar;45:196-203; Eur J Pain. 2008;12:301-13; Neurology. 2012 Apr 24;78[17]:1346-53).
Adverse effects are mostly gastrointestinal, such as diarrhea and stomach upset, and dermal/allergic reactions, such as itchy eyes, asthma, and itching.
Caffeine
Caffeine is the most popular drug of choice for reducing drowsiness and increasing alertness and has the strongest evidence base, including for improving sports and work performance (J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Jan;24[1]:257-65). Regular caffeine use can lead to dependence, however, and it can cause anxiety, nervousness, irritability, insomnia, peptic ulcers, palpitations, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and tremors. Withdrawal can involve headaches, irritability, and anxiety.
Cannabidiol
Marijuana has more than 80 cannabinoids, and a nonpsychoactive one, cannabidiol, makes up about 40% of cannabis extracts, Dr. Breuner said. It’s been used as an anticonvulsant and to combat anxiety, psychosis, nausea and rheumatoid arthritis pain. In a study using a rat model for arthritis, inflammation and pain-related behaviors decreased in rats that received cannabidiol (Eur J Pain. 2016 Jul;20[6]:936-48).
A human dose would be about 160-300 mg daily, but side effects can include dry mouth, hypotension, lightheadedness, psychomotor slowing, sedation, and sleepiness.
Coenzyme Q10
This antioxidant is fat-soluble and has a chemical structure similar to vitamin K. It has been used in people with autism, chronic fatigue syndrome, fatigue from chemotherapy, Lyme disease, and muscular dystrophy, but the evidence focuses on fibromyalgia. One study of patients with fibromyalgia found that a 300-mg daily dose for 40 days reduced pain by 52%-56%, fatigue by 47%, morning tiredness by 56%, and tender points by 44%, compared with baseline (Antioxid Redox Signal. 2013;19[12]:1356-61.)
In another, 200 mg of coenzyme Q10 with 200 mg ginkgo daily for 3 months resulted in improvement of quality of life measures, including physical fitness levels, emotional feelings, social activities, overall health, and pain (J Int Med Res. 2002;30:195-9).
Potential adverse effects of coenzyme Q10 include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, appetite suppression, and heartburn, albeit typically in less than 1% of patients.
Echinacea
Echinacea actually is approved in Germany for supportive therapy in treating upper respiratory tract infections, urogenital infections, and wound healing, Dr. Breuner said. Hypothesized mechanisms of action include stimulation of the alternate complement pathway, immune-modulating effects, activating nonspecific T cells, inhibiting viral replication, and enhancing phagocytosis.
However, in clinical studies, echinacea did not reduce the duration or severity of upper respiratory tract infections or the occurrence or severity of infection, compared with placebo (JAMA. 2003 Dec 3;290[21]:2824-30; N Engl J Med. 2005 Jul 28;353[4]:341-8); this was tested in children aged 2-11 years in the first study, and the mean age of the subjects in the second study was 21 years. A 2014 Cochrane review found no overall benefits for treating common colds but noted the possibility of “a weak benefit from some echinacea products” based on individual trials with consistently positive, yet nonsignificant, trends, albeit with “questionable clinical relevance” (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Feb 20;[2]:CD000530).
People with autoimmune conditions or who are immunocompromised should not use echinacea.
Magnesium
Magnesium also is used to treat migraines with a dose of 300-500 mg daily, although also it can be consumed in food, such as soy beans, black beans, tofu, seeds, nuts, whole grains, and shellfish (Expert Rev Neurother. 2009 Mar;9[3]:369-79; Neurology. 2012 Apr 24;78[17]:1346-53).
Side effects can include diarrhea and interactions with bisphosphonates, antibiotics] and diuretics. Taking proton pump inhibitors also may reduce magnesium levels.
Melatonin
Melatonin, a synthetic version of the hormone produced in humans to signal the onset of nighttime, has been studied extensively for jet lag, insomnia, shift-work disorder, circadian rhythm disorders, and withdrawal from benzodiazepine and nicotine.
Research shows that melatonin can improve sleep onset, duration, and quality. Some research has shown increased total sleep time (PLoS One. 2013 May 17;8(5):e63773).
Some evidence suggests it has endocrine-disrupting adverse effects, such as inhibiting ovulation and impairing glucose utilization.
N-acetyl cysteine (NAC)
Although it’s primarily an antidote for acetaminophen and carbon monoxide poisoning, NAC has been used for a wide range of conditions, including reducing lipoprotein levels with hyperlipidemia and reducing risk of cardiovascular events in people with end-stage renal disease and other conditions. It also has been used in people with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, PTSD, substance disorders, and Tourette syndrome.
“Some clinical research shows that taking NAC 900 mg daily for 4 weeks, followed by 900 mg twice daily for 4 weeks and then 900 mg three times daily for 4 weeks improves symptoms of irritability in children with autism,” Dr. Breuner said. Other research showed reduced irritability in children with autism when they took 1,200 mg of NAC daily with risperidone, compared with risperidone alone. One study also has found “that NAC adds to the effect of citalopram in improving resistance/control to compulsions in OCD children and adolescents” (Iran J Psychiatry. 2017 Apr;12[2]:134-141).
Side effects can include diarrhea, nausea, and heartburn.
Omega-3 fatty acids: DHA and EHA
Docosahexanoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentanoic acid (EHA) have been used to treat ADHD, depression, heart disease, and also to lower the risk of macular degeneration.
A systematic review of 25 randomized controlled trials of more than 3,600 subjects found that “omega-3 supplementation generally correlated with improvements in blood biomarkers” (Nutrients. 2018 Aug 15;10[8]. pii: E1094). A small study in children with Tourette syndrome found that omega-3 fatty acids did not reduce tic scores, but “may be beneficial in reduction of tic-related impairment” for some children and teens (Pediatrics. 2012 Jun;129[6]:e1493-500).
Possible adverse effects include fishy taste, belching, nosebleeds, nausea, loose stools, and – at higher doses – decreased blood coagulation.
St. John’s wort
This herb has long been used to treat depression and appears to work by inhibiting serotonin reuptake, monoamine oxidase (MAO), 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT), dopamine, noradrenaline, gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA), and glutamate. A 2005 Cochrane review found St. John’s wort to work better than placebo with similar effectiveness as standard antidepressants for mild to moderate depression, but its benefit for major depression is questionable (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Apr 18;[2]:CD000448).
An ideal dose is 300 mg daily, but physicians should be aware of the herb’s potential for certain drug interactions. It may increase metabolism of warfarin, cyclosporin, HIV protease inhibitors, theophylline, digoxin, and oral contraceptives (Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2012 Jun;8[6]:691-708). Other potential side effects include decreased platelet aggregation, serotonin syndrome, and photosensitivity.
Turmeric (curcumin)
Turmeric is an anti-inflammatory agent used for a wide range of complaints, but research primarily has focused on its use for pain. No studies exist in children, but a handful of studies have found reduction in joint pain and rheumatoid arthritis symptoms in adults with 500-mg doses twice daily (Phytother Res. 2012 Nov;26[11]:1719-25; J Med Food. 2017 Oct;20[10]:1022-30). One of these studies focused on a specific product, Instaflex, that contained turmeric among multiple other active ingredients (Nutr J. 2013 Nov 25;12[1]:154).
Potential adverse effects of turmeric/curcumin include constipation, dyspepsia, diarrhea, dissension, reflux, nausea, vomiting, itching, and hives.
Zinc
Like echinacea, zinc is commonly used to treat the common cold. A 2013 Cochrane review of randomized, controlled trials found that taking zinc “within 24 hours of onset of symptoms reduces the duration of common cold symptoms in healthy people, but some caution is needed due to the heterogeneity of the data” (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jun 18;[6]:CD001364). The dose is 75 mg a day, and potential adverse effects include bad taste, nausea, and anosmia.
Dr. Breuner said she had no relevant financial disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – With more than 10% of children receiving complementary or alternative medicine (CAM), you should be familiar with what does and doesn’t work when it comes to using supplements for various medical issues, said Cora Breuner, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and attending physician at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
Dr. Breuner presented an overview of more than a dozen popular supplements with their uses and evidence at the American Academy of Pediatrics annual meeting. Most of the evidence comes from studies in adults, not children, and the evidence overall is sometimes scant, but it can guide physicians in discussing options with parents interested in CAM.
Butterbur
This root primarily is used to treat migraines via anti-inflammatory effects. The ideal dose is 50-75 mg daily in 2-3 divided doses for children aged 8-9 years and 100-150 mg daily in 2-3 divided doses for those aged 10 and older (Headache. 2005 Mar;45:196-203; Eur J Pain. 2008;12:301-13; Neurology. 2012 Apr 24;78[17]:1346-53).
Adverse effects are mostly gastrointestinal, such as diarrhea and stomach upset, and dermal/allergic reactions, such as itchy eyes, asthma, and itching.
Caffeine
Caffeine is the most popular drug of choice for reducing drowsiness and increasing alertness and has the strongest evidence base, including for improving sports and work performance (J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Jan;24[1]:257-65). Regular caffeine use can lead to dependence, however, and it can cause anxiety, nervousness, irritability, insomnia, peptic ulcers, palpitations, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and tremors. Withdrawal can involve headaches, irritability, and anxiety.
Cannabidiol
Marijuana has more than 80 cannabinoids, and a nonpsychoactive one, cannabidiol, makes up about 40% of cannabis extracts, Dr. Breuner said. It’s been used as an anticonvulsant and to combat anxiety, psychosis, nausea and rheumatoid arthritis pain. In a study using a rat model for arthritis, inflammation and pain-related behaviors decreased in rats that received cannabidiol (Eur J Pain. 2016 Jul;20[6]:936-48).
A human dose would be about 160-300 mg daily, but side effects can include dry mouth, hypotension, lightheadedness, psychomotor slowing, sedation, and sleepiness.
Coenzyme Q10
This antioxidant is fat-soluble and has a chemical structure similar to vitamin K. It has been used in people with autism, chronic fatigue syndrome, fatigue from chemotherapy, Lyme disease, and muscular dystrophy, but the evidence focuses on fibromyalgia. One study of patients with fibromyalgia found that a 300-mg daily dose for 40 days reduced pain by 52%-56%, fatigue by 47%, morning tiredness by 56%, and tender points by 44%, compared with baseline (Antioxid Redox Signal. 2013;19[12]:1356-61.)
In another, 200 mg of coenzyme Q10 with 200 mg ginkgo daily for 3 months resulted in improvement of quality of life measures, including physical fitness levels, emotional feelings, social activities, overall health, and pain (J Int Med Res. 2002;30:195-9).
Potential adverse effects of coenzyme Q10 include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, appetite suppression, and heartburn, albeit typically in less than 1% of patients.
Echinacea
Echinacea actually is approved in Germany for supportive therapy in treating upper respiratory tract infections, urogenital infections, and wound healing, Dr. Breuner said. Hypothesized mechanisms of action include stimulation of the alternate complement pathway, immune-modulating effects, activating nonspecific T cells, inhibiting viral replication, and enhancing phagocytosis.
However, in clinical studies, echinacea did not reduce the duration or severity of upper respiratory tract infections or the occurrence or severity of infection, compared with placebo (JAMA. 2003 Dec 3;290[21]:2824-30; N Engl J Med. 2005 Jul 28;353[4]:341-8); this was tested in children aged 2-11 years in the first study, and the mean age of the subjects in the second study was 21 years. A 2014 Cochrane review found no overall benefits for treating common colds but noted the possibility of “a weak benefit from some echinacea products” based on individual trials with consistently positive, yet nonsignificant, trends, albeit with “questionable clinical relevance” (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Feb 20;[2]:CD000530).
People with autoimmune conditions or who are immunocompromised should not use echinacea.
Magnesium
Magnesium also is used to treat migraines with a dose of 300-500 mg daily, although also it can be consumed in food, such as soy beans, black beans, tofu, seeds, nuts, whole grains, and shellfish (Expert Rev Neurother. 2009 Mar;9[3]:369-79; Neurology. 2012 Apr 24;78[17]:1346-53).
Side effects can include diarrhea and interactions with bisphosphonates, antibiotics] and diuretics. Taking proton pump inhibitors also may reduce magnesium levels.
Melatonin
Melatonin, a synthetic version of the hormone produced in humans to signal the onset of nighttime, has been studied extensively for jet lag, insomnia, shift-work disorder, circadian rhythm disorders, and withdrawal from benzodiazepine and nicotine.
Research shows that melatonin can improve sleep onset, duration, and quality. Some research has shown increased total sleep time (PLoS One. 2013 May 17;8(5):e63773).
Some evidence suggests it has endocrine-disrupting adverse effects, such as inhibiting ovulation and impairing glucose utilization.
N-acetyl cysteine (NAC)
Although it’s primarily an antidote for acetaminophen and carbon monoxide poisoning, NAC has been used for a wide range of conditions, including reducing lipoprotein levels with hyperlipidemia and reducing risk of cardiovascular events in people with end-stage renal disease and other conditions. It also has been used in people with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, PTSD, substance disorders, and Tourette syndrome.
“Some clinical research shows that taking NAC 900 mg daily for 4 weeks, followed by 900 mg twice daily for 4 weeks and then 900 mg three times daily for 4 weeks improves symptoms of irritability in children with autism,” Dr. Breuner said. Other research showed reduced irritability in children with autism when they took 1,200 mg of NAC daily with risperidone, compared with risperidone alone. One study also has found “that NAC adds to the effect of citalopram in improving resistance/control to compulsions in OCD children and adolescents” (Iran J Psychiatry. 2017 Apr;12[2]:134-141).
Side effects can include diarrhea, nausea, and heartburn.
Omega-3 fatty acids: DHA and EHA
Docosahexanoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentanoic acid (EHA) have been used to treat ADHD, depression, heart disease, and also to lower the risk of macular degeneration.
A systematic review of 25 randomized controlled trials of more than 3,600 subjects found that “omega-3 supplementation generally correlated with improvements in blood biomarkers” (Nutrients. 2018 Aug 15;10[8]. pii: E1094). A small study in children with Tourette syndrome found that omega-3 fatty acids did not reduce tic scores, but “may be beneficial in reduction of tic-related impairment” for some children and teens (Pediatrics. 2012 Jun;129[6]:e1493-500).
Possible adverse effects include fishy taste, belching, nosebleeds, nausea, loose stools, and – at higher doses – decreased blood coagulation.
St. John’s wort
This herb has long been used to treat depression and appears to work by inhibiting serotonin reuptake, monoamine oxidase (MAO), 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT), dopamine, noradrenaline, gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA), and glutamate. A 2005 Cochrane review found St. John’s wort to work better than placebo with similar effectiveness as standard antidepressants for mild to moderate depression, but its benefit for major depression is questionable (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Apr 18;[2]:CD000448).
An ideal dose is 300 mg daily, but physicians should be aware of the herb’s potential for certain drug interactions. It may increase metabolism of warfarin, cyclosporin, HIV protease inhibitors, theophylline, digoxin, and oral contraceptives (Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2012 Jun;8[6]:691-708). Other potential side effects include decreased platelet aggregation, serotonin syndrome, and photosensitivity.
Turmeric (curcumin)
Turmeric is an anti-inflammatory agent used for a wide range of complaints, but research primarily has focused on its use for pain. No studies exist in children, but a handful of studies have found reduction in joint pain and rheumatoid arthritis symptoms in adults with 500-mg doses twice daily (Phytother Res. 2012 Nov;26[11]:1719-25; J Med Food. 2017 Oct;20[10]:1022-30). One of these studies focused on a specific product, Instaflex, that contained turmeric among multiple other active ingredients (Nutr J. 2013 Nov 25;12[1]:154).
Potential adverse effects of turmeric/curcumin include constipation, dyspepsia, diarrhea, dissension, reflux, nausea, vomiting, itching, and hives.
Zinc
Like echinacea, zinc is commonly used to treat the common cold. A 2013 Cochrane review of randomized, controlled trials found that taking zinc “within 24 hours of onset of symptoms reduces the duration of common cold symptoms in healthy people, but some caution is needed due to the heterogeneity of the data” (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jun 18;[6]:CD001364). The dose is 75 mg a day, and potential adverse effects include bad taste, nausea, and anosmia.
Dr. Breuner said she had no relevant financial disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – With more than 10% of children receiving complementary or alternative medicine (CAM), you should be familiar with what does and doesn’t work when it comes to using supplements for various medical issues, said Cora Breuner, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and attending physician at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
Dr. Breuner presented an overview of more than a dozen popular supplements with their uses and evidence at the American Academy of Pediatrics annual meeting. Most of the evidence comes from studies in adults, not children, and the evidence overall is sometimes scant, but it can guide physicians in discussing options with parents interested in CAM.
Butterbur
This root primarily is used to treat migraines via anti-inflammatory effects. The ideal dose is 50-75 mg daily in 2-3 divided doses for children aged 8-9 years and 100-150 mg daily in 2-3 divided doses for those aged 10 and older (Headache. 2005 Mar;45:196-203; Eur J Pain. 2008;12:301-13; Neurology. 2012 Apr 24;78[17]:1346-53).
Adverse effects are mostly gastrointestinal, such as diarrhea and stomach upset, and dermal/allergic reactions, such as itchy eyes, asthma, and itching.
Caffeine
Caffeine is the most popular drug of choice for reducing drowsiness and increasing alertness and has the strongest evidence base, including for improving sports and work performance (J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Jan;24[1]:257-65). Regular caffeine use can lead to dependence, however, and it can cause anxiety, nervousness, irritability, insomnia, peptic ulcers, palpitations, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and tremors. Withdrawal can involve headaches, irritability, and anxiety.
Cannabidiol
Marijuana has more than 80 cannabinoids, and a nonpsychoactive one, cannabidiol, makes up about 40% of cannabis extracts, Dr. Breuner said. It’s been used as an anticonvulsant and to combat anxiety, psychosis, nausea and rheumatoid arthritis pain. In a study using a rat model for arthritis, inflammation and pain-related behaviors decreased in rats that received cannabidiol (Eur J Pain. 2016 Jul;20[6]:936-48).
A human dose would be about 160-300 mg daily, but side effects can include dry mouth, hypotension, lightheadedness, psychomotor slowing, sedation, and sleepiness.
Coenzyme Q10
This antioxidant is fat-soluble and has a chemical structure similar to vitamin K. It has been used in people with autism, chronic fatigue syndrome, fatigue from chemotherapy, Lyme disease, and muscular dystrophy, but the evidence focuses on fibromyalgia. One study of patients with fibromyalgia found that a 300-mg daily dose for 40 days reduced pain by 52%-56%, fatigue by 47%, morning tiredness by 56%, and tender points by 44%, compared with baseline (Antioxid Redox Signal. 2013;19[12]:1356-61.)
In another, 200 mg of coenzyme Q10 with 200 mg ginkgo daily for 3 months resulted in improvement of quality of life measures, including physical fitness levels, emotional feelings, social activities, overall health, and pain (J Int Med Res. 2002;30:195-9).
Potential adverse effects of coenzyme Q10 include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, appetite suppression, and heartburn, albeit typically in less than 1% of patients.
Echinacea
Echinacea actually is approved in Germany for supportive therapy in treating upper respiratory tract infections, urogenital infections, and wound healing, Dr. Breuner said. Hypothesized mechanisms of action include stimulation of the alternate complement pathway, immune-modulating effects, activating nonspecific T cells, inhibiting viral replication, and enhancing phagocytosis.
However, in clinical studies, echinacea did not reduce the duration or severity of upper respiratory tract infections or the occurrence or severity of infection, compared with placebo (JAMA. 2003 Dec 3;290[21]:2824-30; N Engl J Med. 2005 Jul 28;353[4]:341-8); this was tested in children aged 2-11 years in the first study, and the mean age of the subjects in the second study was 21 years. A 2014 Cochrane review found no overall benefits for treating common colds but noted the possibility of “a weak benefit from some echinacea products” based on individual trials with consistently positive, yet nonsignificant, trends, albeit with “questionable clinical relevance” (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Feb 20;[2]:CD000530).
People with autoimmune conditions or who are immunocompromised should not use echinacea.
Magnesium
Magnesium also is used to treat migraines with a dose of 300-500 mg daily, although also it can be consumed in food, such as soy beans, black beans, tofu, seeds, nuts, whole grains, and shellfish (Expert Rev Neurother. 2009 Mar;9[3]:369-79; Neurology. 2012 Apr 24;78[17]:1346-53).
Side effects can include diarrhea and interactions with bisphosphonates, antibiotics] and diuretics. Taking proton pump inhibitors also may reduce magnesium levels.
Melatonin
Melatonin, a synthetic version of the hormone produced in humans to signal the onset of nighttime, has been studied extensively for jet lag, insomnia, shift-work disorder, circadian rhythm disorders, and withdrawal from benzodiazepine and nicotine.
Research shows that melatonin can improve sleep onset, duration, and quality. Some research has shown increased total sleep time (PLoS One. 2013 May 17;8(5):e63773).
Some evidence suggests it has endocrine-disrupting adverse effects, such as inhibiting ovulation and impairing glucose utilization.
N-acetyl cysteine (NAC)
Although it’s primarily an antidote for acetaminophen and carbon monoxide poisoning, NAC has been used for a wide range of conditions, including reducing lipoprotein levels with hyperlipidemia and reducing risk of cardiovascular events in people with end-stage renal disease and other conditions. It also has been used in people with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, PTSD, substance disorders, and Tourette syndrome.
“Some clinical research shows that taking NAC 900 mg daily for 4 weeks, followed by 900 mg twice daily for 4 weeks and then 900 mg three times daily for 4 weeks improves symptoms of irritability in children with autism,” Dr. Breuner said. Other research showed reduced irritability in children with autism when they took 1,200 mg of NAC daily with risperidone, compared with risperidone alone. One study also has found “that NAC adds to the effect of citalopram in improving resistance/control to compulsions in OCD children and adolescents” (Iran J Psychiatry. 2017 Apr;12[2]:134-141).
Side effects can include diarrhea, nausea, and heartburn.
Omega-3 fatty acids: DHA and EHA
Docosahexanoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentanoic acid (EHA) have been used to treat ADHD, depression, heart disease, and also to lower the risk of macular degeneration.
A systematic review of 25 randomized controlled trials of more than 3,600 subjects found that “omega-3 supplementation generally correlated with improvements in blood biomarkers” (Nutrients. 2018 Aug 15;10[8]. pii: E1094). A small study in children with Tourette syndrome found that omega-3 fatty acids did not reduce tic scores, but “may be beneficial in reduction of tic-related impairment” for some children and teens (Pediatrics. 2012 Jun;129[6]:e1493-500).
Possible adverse effects include fishy taste, belching, nosebleeds, nausea, loose stools, and – at higher doses – decreased blood coagulation.
St. John’s wort
This herb has long been used to treat depression and appears to work by inhibiting serotonin reuptake, monoamine oxidase (MAO), 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT), dopamine, noradrenaline, gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA), and glutamate. A 2005 Cochrane review found St. John’s wort to work better than placebo with similar effectiveness as standard antidepressants for mild to moderate depression, but its benefit for major depression is questionable (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Apr 18;[2]:CD000448).
An ideal dose is 300 mg daily, but physicians should be aware of the herb’s potential for certain drug interactions. It may increase metabolism of warfarin, cyclosporin, HIV protease inhibitors, theophylline, digoxin, and oral contraceptives (Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2012 Jun;8[6]:691-708). Other potential side effects include decreased platelet aggregation, serotonin syndrome, and photosensitivity.
Turmeric (curcumin)
Turmeric is an anti-inflammatory agent used for a wide range of complaints, but research primarily has focused on its use for pain. No studies exist in children, but a handful of studies have found reduction in joint pain and rheumatoid arthritis symptoms in adults with 500-mg doses twice daily (Phytother Res. 2012 Nov;26[11]:1719-25; J Med Food. 2017 Oct;20[10]:1022-30). One of these studies focused on a specific product, Instaflex, that contained turmeric among multiple other active ingredients (Nutr J. 2013 Nov 25;12[1]:154).
Potential adverse effects of turmeric/curcumin include constipation, dyspepsia, diarrhea, dissension, reflux, nausea, vomiting, itching, and hives.
Zinc
Like echinacea, zinc is commonly used to treat the common cold. A 2013 Cochrane review of randomized, controlled trials found that taking zinc “within 24 hours of onset of symptoms reduces the duration of common cold symptoms in healthy people, but some caution is needed due to the heterogeneity of the data” (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jun 18;[6]:CD001364). The dose is 75 mg a day, and potential adverse effects include bad taste, nausea, and anosmia.
Dr. Breuner said she had no relevant financial disclosures.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM AAP 19