Key clinical point: Patients hospitalized with refractory chronic migraine treated with continuous multiday lidocaine infusions showed a significant improvement in pain immediately after the infusion, with some patients maintaining this improvement at 1 month.

Major finding: Median pain ratings decreased from 7.0 on admission to 1.0 at discharge (P < .001), with 87.8% of admissions being cases of acute response. Among acute responders with data on average pain, 43.2% demonstrated sustained response at 1 month.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study of 609 hospital admissions involving 537 patients with refractory chronic migraine who received continuous multiday lidocaine infusions.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. SD Silberstein declared serving as a consultant and advisory panel member for and receiving honoraria from various sources.

Source: Schwenk ES et al. Lidocaine infusions for refractory chronic migraine: A retrospective analysis. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2022;47:408-413 (May 23). Doi: 10.1136/rapm-2021-103180

Key clinical point: Patients hospitalized with refractory chronic migraine treated with continuous multiday lidocaine infusions showed a significant improvement in pain immediately after the infusion, with some patients maintaining this improvement at 1 month.

Major finding: Median pain ratings decreased from 7.0 on admission to 1.0 at discharge (P < .001), with 87.8% of admissions being cases of acute response. Among acute responders with data on average pain, 43.2% demonstrated sustained response at 1 month.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study of 609 hospital admissions involving 537 patients with refractory chronic migraine who received continuous multiday lidocaine infusions.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. SD Silberstein declared serving as a consultant and advisory panel member for and receiving honoraria from various sources.

Source: Schwenk ES et al. Lidocaine infusions for refractory chronic migraine: A retrospective analysis. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2022;47:408-413 (May 23). Doi: 10.1136/rapm-2021-103180

Key clinical point: Patients hospitalized with refractory chronic migraine treated with continuous multiday lidocaine infusions showed a significant improvement in pain immediately after the infusion, with some patients maintaining this improvement at 1 month.

Major finding: Median pain ratings decreased from 7.0 on admission to 1.0 at discharge (P < .001), with 87.8% of admissions being cases of acute response. Among acute responders with data on average pain, 43.2% demonstrated sustained response at 1 month.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study of 609 hospital admissions involving 537 patients with refractory chronic migraine who received continuous multiday lidocaine infusions.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. SD Silberstein declared serving as a consultant and advisory panel member for and receiving honoraria from various sources.

Source: Schwenk ES et al. Lidocaine infusions for refractory chronic migraine: A retrospective analysis. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2022;47:408-413 (May 23). Doi: 10.1136/rapm-2021-103180

Key clinical point: Cold interventions, including cold-gel headband, cold-gel cap, and intraoral cooling, provide instant relief from pain in patients with migraine; however, their long-term effects on pain are not significant.

Major finding: The cold intervention group vs. control group led to a significant reduction in pain on a visual analog scale score at 30 minutes (standard mean difference [SMD] −3.21; P = .02) but a nonsignificant reduction in the score at 24 hours (SMD −0.44; P = .07) after the intervention.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 6 studies (4 randomized controlled trials and 2 quasi-experimental studies) that included adult patients with migraine who underwent a cold intervention.

Disclosures: The study was partially sponsored by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Israel. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Hsu Y-Y et al. Cold intervention for relieving migraine symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Nurs. 2022 (May 20). Doi: 10.1111/jocn.16368

Key clinical point: Cold interventions, including cold-gel headband, cold-gel cap, and intraoral cooling, provide instant relief from pain in patients with migraine; however, their long-term effects on pain are not significant.

Major finding: The cold intervention group vs. control group led to a significant reduction in pain on a visual analog scale score at 30 minutes (standard mean difference [SMD] −3.21; P = .02) but a nonsignificant reduction in the score at 24 hours (SMD −0.44; P = .07) after the intervention.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 6 studies (4 randomized controlled trials and 2 quasi-experimental studies) that included adult patients with migraine who underwent a cold intervention.

Disclosures: The study was partially sponsored by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Israel. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Hsu Y-Y et al. Cold intervention for relieving migraine symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Nurs. 2022 (May 20). Doi: 10.1111/jocn.16368

Key clinical point: Cold interventions, including cold-gel headband, cold-gel cap, and intraoral cooling, provide instant relief from pain in patients with migraine; however, their long-term effects on pain are not significant.

Major finding: The cold intervention group vs. control group led to a significant reduction in pain on a visual analog scale score at 30 minutes (standard mean difference [SMD] −3.21; P = .02) but a nonsignificant reduction in the score at 24 hours (SMD −0.44; P = .07) after the intervention.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 6 studies (4 randomized controlled trials and 2 quasi-experimental studies) that included adult patients with migraine who underwent a cold intervention.

Disclosures: The study was partially sponsored by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Israel. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Hsu Y-Y et al. Cold intervention for relieving migraine symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Nurs. 2022 (May 20). Doi: 10.1111/jocn.16368

Key clinical point: As a migraine preventive agent, fremanezumab is effective across the full patient spectrum, including those with episodic migraine (EM), chronic migraine (CM), and difficult-to-treat (DTT) migraine (patients with medication overuse [MO], major depressive disorder [MDD], generalized anxiety disorder [GAD], or exposure to a different calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody [CGRP mAb]).

Major finding: At month 6, the mean monthly migraine days reduced in patients with EM (−7.7 days), CM (−10.1 days), MO (−10.8 days), MDD (−9.9 days), GAD (−9.5 days), and prior CGRP mAb exposure (−9.0 days).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, online chart review study that collected data from 1003 patients with EM/CM aged ≥18 years at fremanezumab initiation, including those with DTT migraine, and 421 clinicians treating patients with EM/CM in a US-based practice.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Teva Pharmaceuticals. All authors declared being current or former employees of Teva Pharmaceuticals or Analysis Group, which performed these analyses funded by Teva.

Source: Driessen MT et al. Real-world effectiveness after initiating fremanezumab treatment in US patients with episodic and chronic migraine or difficult-to-treat migraine. J Headache Pain. 2022;23:56 (May 16). Doi: 10.1186/s10194-022-01415-x

Key clinical point: As a migraine preventive agent, fremanezumab is effective across the full patient spectrum, including those with episodic migraine (EM), chronic migraine (CM), and difficult-to-treat (DTT) migraine (patients with medication overuse [MO], major depressive disorder [MDD], generalized anxiety disorder [GAD], or exposure to a different calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody [CGRP mAb]).

Major finding: At month 6, the mean monthly migraine days reduced in patients with EM (−7.7 days), CM (−10.1 days), MO (−10.8 days), MDD (−9.9 days), GAD (−9.5 days), and prior CGRP mAb exposure (−9.0 days).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, online chart review study that collected data from 1003 patients with EM/CM aged ≥18 years at fremanezumab initiation, including those with DTT migraine, and 421 clinicians treating patients with EM/CM in a US-based practice.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Teva Pharmaceuticals. All authors declared being current or former employees of Teva Pharmaceuticals or Analysis Group, which performed these analyses funded by Teva.

Source: Driessen MT et al. Real-world effectiveness after initiating fremanezumab treatment in US patients with episodic and chronic migraine or difficult-to-treat migraine. J Headache Pain. 2022;23:56 (May 16). Doi: 10.1186/s10194-022-01415-x

Key clinical point: As a migraine preventive agent, fremanezumab is effective across the full patient spectrum, including those with episodic migraine (EM), chronic migraine (CM), and difficult-to-treat (DTT) migraine (patients with medication overuse [MO], major depressive disorder [MDD], generalized anxiety disorder [GAD], or exposure to a different calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody [CGRP mAb]).

Major finding: At month 6, the mean monthly migraine days reduced in patients with EM (−7.7 days), CM (−10.1 days), MO (−10.8 days), MDD (−9.9 days), GAD (−9.5 days), and prior CGRP mAb exposure (−9.0 days).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, online chart review study that collected data from 1003 patients with EM/CM aged ≥18 years at fremanezumab initiation, including those with DTT migraine, and 421 clinicians treating patients with EM/CM in a US-based practice.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Teva Pharmaceuticals. All authors declared being current or former employees of Teva Pharmaceuticals or Analysis Group, which performed these analyses funded by Teva.

Source: Driessen MT et al. Real-world effectiveness after initiating fremanezumab treatment in US patients with episodic and chronic migraine or difficult-to-treat migraine. J Headache Pain. 2022;23:56 (May 16). Doi: 10.1186/s10194-022-01415-x

Key clinical point: A dose of 120 mg  galcanezumab  subcutaneously safely and effectively reduces headache frequency, intensity, and duration in patients with episodic and chronic migraine and previous unsuccessful preventive treatments.

Major finding: The 6-month galcanezumab treatment led to a significant decrease in the headache attack frequency (−14.19 headache days/month; P < .001), headache attack pain intensity (numerical rating scale score −2.74; P < .001), and headache attack duration (−6.65 hours; P < .001).

Study details: The data come from an observational, prospective study including 43 patients with episodic high frequency and chronic migraine and unsuccessful treatment with ≥3 preventive medication classes who received monthly 120 mg galcanezumab subcutaneously.

Disclosures: This study received no specific funding. Some authors declared receiving speaker honoraria and travel funding from various sources and serving as associate editors of neurology journals such as European Journal of Neurology.

Source: Silvestro M et al. Galcanezumab effect on “whole pain burden” and multidimensional outcomes in migraine patients with previous unsuccessful treatments: A real-world experience. J Headache Pain. 2022;23:69 (Jun 13. Doi:  10.1186/s10194-022-01436-6

Key clinical point: A dose of 120 mg  galcanezumab  subcutaneously safely and effectively reduces headache frequency, intensity, and duration in patients with episodic and chronic migraine and previous unsuccessful preventive treatments.

Major finding: The 6-month galcanezumab treatment led to a significant decrease in the headache attack frequency (−14.19 headache days/month; P < .001), headache attack pain intensity (numerical rating scale score −2.74; P < .001), and headache attack duration (−6.65 hours; P < .001).

Study details: The data come from an observational, prospective study including 43 patients with episodic high frequency and chronic migraine and unsuccessful treatment with ≥3 preventive medication classes who received monthly 120 mg galcanezumab subcutaneously.

Disclosures: This study received no specific funding. Some authors declared receiving speaker honoraria and travel funding from various sources and serving as associate editors of neurology journals such as European Journal of Neurology.

Source: Silvestro M et al. Galcanezumab effect on “whole pain burden” and multidimensional outcomes in migraine patients with previous unsuccessful treatments: A real-world experience. J Headache Pain. 2022;23:69 (Jun 13. Doi:  10.1186/s10194-022-01436-6

Key clinical point: A dose of 120 mg  galcanezumab  subcutaneously safely and effectively reduces headache frequency, intensity, and duration in patients with episodic and chronic migraine and previous unsuccessful preventive treatments.

Major finding: The 6-month galcanezumab treatment led to a significant decrease in the headache attack frequency (−14.19 headache days/month; P < .001), headache attack pain intensity (numerical rating scale score −2.74; P < .001), and headache attack duration (−6.65 hours; P < .001).

Study details: The data come from an observational, prospective study including 43 patients with episodic high frequency and chronic migraine and unsuccessful treatment with ≥3 preventive medication classes who received monthly 120 mg galcanezumab subcutaneously.

Disclosures: This study received no specific funding. Some authors declared receiving speaker honoraria and travel funding from various sources and serving as associate editors of neurology journals such as European Journal of Neurology.

Source: Silvestro M et al. Galcanezumab effect on “whole pain burden” and multidimensional outcomes in migraine patients with previous unsuccessful treatments: A real-world experience. J Headache Pain. 2022;23:69 (Jun 13. Doi:  10.1186/s10194-022-01436-6

Key clinical point: A higher dose of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox®) may decrease the number of headache and severe headache days in patients with chronic migraine who had an unsatisfactory response to the conventional 150-unit dose.

Major finding: After receiving 3 rounds of 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA, patients had a significant reduction in headache (13.62 ± 10.79 to 11.02 ± 10.61) and severe headache (5.88 ± 6.73 to 4.01 ± 4.89) days (both P < .001).

Study details: This retrospective paired comparison study included 175 patients with chronic migraine who received ≥3 rounds of 150 units onabotulinumtoxinA followed by ≥3 rounds of 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zandieh A, Cutrer FM. OnabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine: Is the response dose dependent? BMC Neurol. 2022;22:218 (Jun 13). Doi: 10.1186/s12883-022-02742-x

Key clinical point: A higher dose of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox®) may decrease the number of headache and severe headache days in patients with chronic migraine who had an unsatisfactory response to the conventional 150-unit dose.

Major finding: After receiving 3 rounds of 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA, patients had a significant reduction in headache (13.62 ± 10.79 to 11.02 ± 10.61) and severe headache (5.88 ± 6.73 to 4.01 ± 4.89) days (both P < .001).

Study details: This retrospective paired comparison study included 175 patients with chronic migraine who received ≥3 rounds of 150 units onabotulinumtoxinA followed by ≥3 rounds of 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zandieh A, Cutrer FM. OnabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine: Is the response dose dependent? BMC Neurol. 2022;22:218 (Jun 13). Doi: 10.1186/s12883-022-02742-x

Key clinical point: A higher dose of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox®) may decrease the number of headache and severe headache days in patients with chronic migraine who had an unsatisfactory response to the conventional 150-unit dose.

Major finding: After receiving 3 rounds of 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA, patients had a significant reduction in headache (13.62 ± 10.79 to 11.02 ± 10.61) and severe headache (5.88 ± 6.73 to 4.01 ± 4.89) days (both P < .001).

Study details: This retrospective paired comparison study included 175 patients with chronic migraine who received ≥3 rounds of 150 units onabotulinumtoxinA followed by ≥3 rounds of 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zandieh A, Cutrer FM. OnabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine: Is the response dose dependent? BMC Neurol. 2022;22:218 (Jun 13). Doi: 10.1186/s12883-022-02742-x

As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”

Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”

Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.

Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.

Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.

Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.

“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”

Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.

What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”

Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”

Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”

The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.

“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”

Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.

While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.

“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”

The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”

Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”

Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.

Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.

Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.

Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.

“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”

Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.

What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”

Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”

Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”

The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.

“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”

Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.

While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.

“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”

The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”

Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”

Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.

Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.

Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.

Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.

“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”

Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.

What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”

Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”

Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”

The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.

“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”

Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.

While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.

“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”

The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Key clinical point: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who consumed processed meat more frequently had a higher mortality risk; however, no such association was observed for the consumption of other types of meat.

Major finding: The risk for all-cause mortality was higher in patients with IBD who consumed processed meat >4.0 vs. 0-0.9 times/week (hazard ratio 1.52; 95% CI 1.05-2.19; P trend for each 25 g increment = .075). However, the consumption of fish, unprocessed poultry, and unprocessed red meat had no significant association with mortality.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort analysis of 5763 patients with IBD from the UK Biobank cohort.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. X Wang declared receiving research grants. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen H, Fu T. Dan L, et al. Meat consumption and all-cause mortality in 5763 patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A retrospective cohort study. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;47:101406 (Apr 21). Doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101406

Key clinical point: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who consumed processed meat more frequently had a higher mortality risk; however, no such association was observed for the consumption of other types of meat.

Major finding: The risk for all-cause mortality was higher in patients with IBD who consumed processed meat >4.0 vs. 0-0.9 times/week (hazard ratio 1.52; 95% CI 1.05-2.19; P trend for each 25 g increment = .075). However, the consumption of fish, unprocessed poultry, and unprocessed red meat had no significant association with mortality.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort analysis of 5763 patients with IBD from the UK Biobank cohort.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. X Wang declared receiving research grants. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen H, Fu T. Dan L, et al. Meat consumption and all-cause mortality in 5763 patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A retrospective cohort study. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;47:101406 (Apr 21). Doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101406

Key clinical point: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who consumed processed meat more frequently had a higher mortality risk; however, no such association was observed for the consumption of other types of meat.

Major finding: The risk for all-cause mortality was higher in patients with IBD who consumed processed meat >4.0 vs. 0-0.9 times/week (hazard ratio 1.52; 95% CI 1.05-2.19; P trend for each 25 g increment = .075). However, the consumption of fish, unprocessed poultry, and unprocessed red meat had no significant association with mortality.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort analysis of 5763 patients with IBD from the UK Biobank cohort.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. X Wang declared receiving research grants. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen H, Fu T. Dan L, et al. Meat consumption and all-cause mortality in 5763 patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A retrospective cohort study. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;47:101406 (Apr 21). Doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101406

Key clinical point: Intradermal (ID) hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination with topical imiquimod pretreatment (ID-Imq) to the injection site was safe and provided superior seroprotection compared with intramuscular (IM) HBV vaccination with aqueous cream pretreatment (IM-Aq) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Major finding: Patients who received ID-Imq vs. IM-Aq showed a significantly higher seroprotection rate at 12 months (91% vs. 69%; P = .005). Overall, 59% and 55% of patients in the ID-Imq and IM-Aq groups reported any adverse events, respectively, with local reactions being more common in the ID-Imq group.

Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 and 3 trial including 104 patients with IBD and no evidence of HBV infection or immunity who were randomly assigned to receive ID-Imq (n = 53) or IM-Aq (n = 51) at 0, 1, and 6 months.

Disclosures: This study was partly funded by a Young Investigator Research Grant from the Hong Kong College of Physicians. WK Leung reported serving as a speaker for Ferring, Janssen, and Takeda.

Source: Ko K-L et al. Clinical trial: Intra-dermal hepatitis B vaccination with topical imiquimod versus intra-muscular hepatitis B vaccination in inflammatory bowel disease patients. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2022 (May 11).  Doi: 10.1111/apt.16970

Key clinical point: Intradermal (ID) hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination with topical imiquimod pretreatment (ID-Imq) to the injection site was safe and provided superior seroprotection compared with intramuscular (IM) HBV vaccination with aqueous cream pretreatment (IM-Aq) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Major finding: Patients who received ID-Imq vs. IM-Aq showed a significantly higher seroprotection rate at 12 months (91% vs. 69%; P = .005). Overall, 59% and 55% of patients in the ID-Imq and IM-Aq groups reported any adverse events, respectively, with local reactions being more common in the ID-Imq group.

Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 and 3 trial including 104 patients with IBD and no evidence of HBV infection or immunity who were randomly assigned to receive ID-Imq (n = 53) or IM-Aq (n = 51) at 0, 1, and 6 months.

Disclosures: This study was partly funded by a Young Investigator Research Grant from the Hong Kong College of Physicians. WK Leung reported serving as a speaker for Ferring, Janssen, and Takeda.

Source: Ko K-L et al. Clinical trial: Intra-dermal hepatitis B vaccination with topical imiquimod versus intra-muscular hepatitis B vaccination in inflammatory bowel disease patients. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2022 (May 11).  Doi: 10.1111/apt.16970

Key clinical point: Intradermal (ID) hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination with topical imiquimod pretreatment (ID-Imq) to the injection site was safe and provided superior seroprotection compared with intramuscular (IM) HBV vaccination with aqueous cream pretreatment (IM-Aq) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Major finding: Patients who received ID-Imq vs. IM-Aq showed a significantly higher seroprotection rate at 12 months (91% vs. 69%; P = .005). Overall, 59% and 55% of patients in the ID-Imq and IM-Aq groups reported any adverse events, respectively, with local reactions being more common in the ID-Imq group.

Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 and 3 trial including 104 patients with IBD and no evidence of HBV infection or immunity who were randomly assigned to receive ID-Imq (n = 53) or IM-Aq (n = 51) at 0, 1, and 6 months.

Disclosures: This study was partly funded by a Young Investigator Research Grant from the Hong Kong College of Physicians. WK Leung reported serving as a speaker for Ferring, Janssen, and Takeda.

Source: Ko K-L et al. Clinical trial: Intra-dermal hepatitis B vaccination with topical imiquimod versus intra-muscular hepatitis B vaccination in inflammatory bowel disease patients. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2022 (May 11).  Doi: 10.1111/apt.16970

Key clinical point: Excess exposure to steroids has a significant negative impact on patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Major finding: Steroid excess was observed in 15% of patients. The risks for ≥1 hospitalizations for IBD (odds ratio [OR] 12.33; 95% CI 8.89-17.11) and infections (OR 2.89; 95% CI 1.82-4.61) and ≥1 courses of general practitioner-prescribed antibiotics (OR 1.41; 95% CI 1.07-1.86) were significantly higher in patients with steroid excess vs. those without steroid exposure.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 2246 patients with IBD and primary care information.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a research grant from AbbVie. T Raine and CP Selinger declared receiving research/educational grants or speaker/consultation fees from various sources, including AbbVie.

Source: Rosiou K et al. Sources of excess steroid prescriptions and clinical adverse outcomes associated with steroid excess in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: The Leeds IBD Steroids study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2022 (May 24). Doi: 10.1111/apt.17039

Key clinical point: Excess exposure to steroids has a significant negative impact on patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Major finding: Steroid excess was observed in 15% of patients. The risks for ≥1 hospitalizations for IBD (odds ratio [OR] 12.33; 95% CI 8.89-17.11) and infections (OR 2.89; 95% CI 1.82-4.61) and ≥1 courses of general practitioner-prescribed antibiotics (OR 1.41; 95% CI 1.07-1.86) were significantly higher in patients with steroid excess vs. those without steroid exposure.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 2246 patients with IBD and primary care information.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a research grant from AbbVie. T Raine and CP Selinger declared receiving research/educational grants or speaker/consultation fees from various sources, including AbbVie.

Source: Rosiou K et al. Sources of excess steroid prescriptions and clinical adverse outcomes associated with steroid excess in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: The Leeds IBD Steroids study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2022 (May 24). Doi: 10.1111/apt.17039

Key clinical point: Excess exposure to steroids has a significant negative impact on patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Major finding: Steroid excess was observed in 15% of patients. The risks for ≥1 hospitalizations for IBD (odds ratio [OR] 12.33; 95% CI 8.89-17.11) and infections (OR 2.89; 95% CI 1.82-4.61) and ≥1 courses of general practitioner-prescribed antibiotics (OR 1.41; 95% CI 1.07-1.86) were significantly higher in patients with steroid excess vs. those without steroid exposure.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 2246 patients with IBD and primary care information.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a research grant from AbbVie. T Raine and CP Selinger declared receiving research/educational grants or speaker/consultation fees from various sources, including AbbVie.

Source: Rosiou K et al. Sources of excess steroid prescriptions and clinical adverse outcomes associated with steroid excess in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: The Leeds IBD Steroids study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2022 (May 24). Doi: 10.1111/apt.17039

I can dimly recall watching Queen Elizabeth’s coronation on a very small black and white television screen. Even in monochrome it was a riveting event. Recently, the Queen celebrated her Platinum Jubilee, marking her 70-year reign. Apparently it was a multiday event with all the trappings, floating above an undercurrent of scandal and intrigue. I had better things to do than I did as a 7-year-old entranced by the novelty of a neighbor’s television set.

But, it turns out that I had missed the opportunity to see live and in color a royal meltdown starring the Queen’s great-grandson, 4-year-old Prince Louis. Not to worry. It remains on video archives for our education and pleasure ad infinitum. His performance was no more dramatic than what you have seen numerous times in the checkout line of the grocery store. However, this meltdown was on the world stage in the front row of the royal box and performed in various venues on each day of a 4-day event.

As long as you weren’t his parents, Kate Middleton and Prince William, the meltdown had its moments of hilarity. Louis made full use of his youthful and plastic face, creating a wide variety of taunts and responses to his mother’s praiseworthy and understated attempts at regaining control. Of course, the British press and every armchair parent with a Twitter account had a field day contributing their explanations and advice.

For example, here’s the headline on an international news website that caught my eye: “Royal reveals why Prince Louis was so ‘mischievous’ during the Jubilee”. In the article, a fellow royal and former rugby star who was sitting directly behind the little Prince during one of his performances chalked up the 4-year-old’s behavior to a “sugar high” resulting from the ample supply of sweets available behind the royal box.

Nowhere in the article is there a question of whether the “sugar high” is a science-based phenomenon. In fact, the reporter assumes we all know it exists and writes that “parents across the globe can probably [read: definitely] relate.”

I’m curious: How do you respond when a parent in the office explains the child’s behavior as the result of a “sugar high”? Or when you’re at a cookout and someone makes a comment that makes it obvious that they believe that “sugar highs” are real? Do you immediately pause the conversation and launch into a short but tasteful observation that you know of no scientific studies that sugar can cause a high? Or, figuring that in the face of an overwhelming burden of old wives’ tales it’s not worth mounting a rebuttal, do you pretend you didn’t hear the comment?

Or am I completely off base because your experience has left you convinced that despite the lack of supporting studies the “sugar high” phenomenon exists? Maybe you even include it on your list of explanations and remedies for pediatric misbehaviors. I am ready to listen, but it will take some heavy lifting to convince me.

I suspect your response to offhand comments about “sugar highs” is similar to mine. It depends on the situation. If I think there are obvious and correctable causes for the child’s misbehavior such as sleep deprivation or a mismatch between parental expectation and the child’s tolerance for a stimulating environment I will include in my parenting advice the comment, “Sugar highs probably don’t exist.”

On the other hand, if I’m tired and think my observation will fall on deaf ears I let the conversation drift. I worry that my silence will be interpreted as a confirmation of an old wives’ tale. What I really don’t want to do is perpetuate a myth that may prevent some children from getting the care they need.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I can dimly recall watching Queen Elizabeth’s coronation on a very small black and white television screen. Even in monochrome it was a riveting event. Recently, the Queen celebrated her Platinum Jubilee, marking her 70-year reign. Apparently it was a multiday event with all the trappings, floating above an undercurrent of scandal and intrigue. I had better things to do than I did as a 7-year-old entranced by the novelty of a neighbor’s television set.

But, it turns out that I had missed the opportunity to see live and in color a royal meltdown starring the Queen’s great-grandson, 4-year-old Prince Louis. Not to worry. It remains on video archives for our education and pleasure ad infinitum. His performance was no more dramatic than what you have seen numerous times in the checkout line of the grocery store. However, this meltdown was on the world stage in the front row of the royal box and performed in various venues on each day of a 4-day event.

As long as you weren’t his parents, Kate Middleton and Prince William, the meltdown had its moments of hilarity. Louis made full use of his youthful and plastic face, creating a wide variety of taunts and responses to his mother’s praiseworthy and understated attempts at regaining control. Of course, the British press and every armchair parent with a Twitter account had a field day contributing their explanations and advice.

For example, here’s the headline on an international news website that caught my eye: “Royal reveals why Prince Louis was so ‘mischievous’ during the Jubilee”. In the article, a fellow royal and former rugby star who was sitting directly behind the little Prince during one of his performances chalked up the 4-year-old’s behavior to a “sugar high” resulting from the ample supply of sweets available behind the royal box.

Nowhere in the article is there a question of whether the “sugar high” is a science-based phenomenon. In fact, the reporter assumes we all know it exists and writes that “parents across the globe can probably [read: definitely] relate.”

I’m curious: How do you respond when a parent in the office explains the child’s behavior as the result of a “sugar high”? Or when you’re at a cookout and someone makes a comment that makes it obvious that they believe that “sugar highs” are real? Do you immediately pause the conversation and launch into a short but tasteful observation that you know of no scientific studies that sugar can cause a high? Or, figuring that in the face of an overwhelming burden of old wives’ tales it’s not worth mounting a rebuttal, do you pretend you didn’t hear the comment?

Or am I completely off base because your experience has left you convinced that despite the lack of supporting studies the “sugar high” phenomenon exists? Maybe you even include it on your list of explanations and remedies for pediatric misbehaviors. I am ready to listen, but it will take some heavy lifting to convince me.

I suspect your response to offhand comments about “sugar highs” is similar to mine. It depends on the situation. If I think there are obvious and correctable causes for the child’s misbehavior such as sleep deprivation or a mismatch between parental expectation and the child’s tolerance for a stimulating environment I will include in my parenting advice the comment, “Sugar highs probably don’t exist.”

On the other hand, if I’m tired and think my observation will fall on deaf ears I let the conversation drift. I worry that my silence will be interpreted as a confirmation of an old wives’ tale. What I really don’t want to do is perpetuate a myth that may prevent some children from getting the care they need.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I can dimly recall watching Queen Elizabeth’s coronation on a very small black and white television screen. Even in monochrome it was a riveting event. Recently, the Queen celebrated her Platinum Jubilee, marking her 70-year reign. Apparently it was a multiday event with all the trappings, floating above an undercurrent of scandal and intrigue. I had better things to do than I did as a 7-year-old entranced by the novelty of a neighbor’s television set.

But, it turns out that I had missed the opportunity to see live and in color a royal meltdown starring the Queen’s great-grandson, 4-year-old Prince Louis. Not to worry. It remains on video archives for our education and pleasure ad infinitum. His performance was no more dramatic than what you have seen numerous times in the checkout line of the grocery store. However, this meltdown was on the world stage in the front row of the royal box and performed in various venues on each day of a 4-day event.

As long as you weren’t his parents, Kate Middleton and Prince William, the meltdown had its moments of hilarity. Louis made full use of his youthful and plastic face, creating a wide variety of taunts and responses to his mother’s praiseworthy and understated attempts at regaining control. Of course, the British press and every armchair parent with a Twitter account had a field day contributing their explanations and advice.

For example, here’s the headline on an international news website that caught my eye: “Royal reveals why Prince Louis was so ‘mischievous’ during the Jubilee”. In the article, a fellow royal and former rugby star who was sitting directly behind the little Prince during one of his performances chalked up the 4-year-old’s behavior to a “sugar high” resulting from the ample supply of sweets available behind the royal box.

Nowhere in the article is there a question of whether the “sugar high” is a science-based phenomenon. In fact, the reporter assumes we all know it exists and writes that “parents across the globe can probably [read: definitely] relate.”

I’m curious: How do you respond when a parent in the office explains the child’s behavior as the result of a “sugar high”? Or when you’re at a cookout and someone makes a comment that makes it obvious that they believe that “sugar highs” are real? Do you immediately pause the conversation and launch into a short but tasteful observation that you know of no scientific studies that sugar can cause a high? Or, figuring that in the face of an overwhelming burden of old wives’ tales it’s not worth mounting a rebuttal, do you pretend you didn’t hear the comment?

Or am I completely off base because your experience has left you convinced that despite the lack of supporting studies the “sugar high” phenomenon exists? Maybe you even include it on your list of explanations and remedies for pediatric misbehaviors. I am ready to listen, but it will take some heavy lifting to convince me.

I suspect your response to offhand comments about “sugar highs” is similar to mine. It depends on the situation. If I think there are obvious and correctable causes for the child’s misbehavior such as sleep deprivation or a mismatch between parental expectation and the child’s tolerance for a stimulating environment I will include in my parenting advice the comment, “Sugar highs probably don’t exist.”

On the other hand, if I’m tired and think my observation will fall on deaf ears I let the conversation drift. I worry that my silence will be interpreted as a confirmation of an old wives’ tale. What I really don’t want to do is perpetuate a myth that may prevent some children from getting the care they need.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].