User login
News and Views that Matter to Pediatricians
The leading independent newspaper covering news and commentary in pediatrics.
Must-read acute care medicine articles from 2022
When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.
Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic.
Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.
As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls
The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.
Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).
They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release
I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.
Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.
In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.
The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine
Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!
This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:
- “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
- “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
- “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
- “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
- “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.
The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department
The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.
Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?
Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.
Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
In summary
There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.
Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.
Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic.
Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.
As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls
The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.
Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).
They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release
I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.
Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.
In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.
The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine
Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!
This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:
- “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
- “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
- “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
- “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
- “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.
The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department
The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.
Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?
Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.
Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
In summary
There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.
Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.
Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic.
Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.
As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls
The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.
Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).
They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release
I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.
Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.
In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.
The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine
Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!
This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:
- “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
- “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
- “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
- “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
- “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.
The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department
The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.
Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?
Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.
Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
In summary
There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.
Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mental health system failing kids leaving ED
Only 56% of children enrolled in Medicaid received any outpatient follow-up within 30 days after a mental health emergency department discharge, according to results of a large study released in Pediatrics.
Fewer than one-third (31.2%) had an outpatient visit within a week after a mental health ED discharge.
Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 28,551 children ages 6-17 years old who had mental health discharges from EDs from January 2018 to June 2019.
The researchers, led by Jennifer A. Hoffmann, MD, MS, with the division of emergency medicine, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and Northwestern University, Chicago, also analyzed the effect that having a timely follow-up had on whether the child was likely to return to the ED.
Follow-up within 30 days cuts risk of quick return to ED
They found that follow-up within 30 days was linked with a 26% decreased risk of return within 5 days of the initial ED discharge (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.91).
The researchers also found racial disparities in the data. The odds for getting follow-up outpatient care were lower for non-Hispanic Black children, for children with fee-for-service insurance, and for children with no previous mental health outpatient visits.
The numbers were particularly striking for Black children, who were 10% less likely to get outpatient follow-up than their White counterparts.
In addition, 27% of all children in this sample returned to the ED for mental health-related symptoms within 6 months, 20% spent more than 48 hours in the ED for their initial mental health visit, and children with 14 or more mental health outpatient visits had five times higher adjusted odds of follow-up within 7 days and 9.5 times higher adjusted odds of follow-up within 30 days, compared with children with no outpatient mental health visits in the previous year.
A ‘mental health system of care in crisis’
In an accompanying editorial, Hannah E. Karpman, MSW, PhD, with the department of pediatrics, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, and colleagues said those statistics help expose other signs of “a pediatric mental health system of care in crisis.”
If one in five children are spending more than 2 days in the ED for their initial mental health visit, they wrote, that signals the follow-up care they need is not readily available.
The 27% returning to the ED shows that, even if the children are getting outpatient services, that environment is failing them, they noted.
Additionally, 28% of children presented with more than four mental health diagnoses, “suggesting poor diagnostic specificity or perhaps inadequate diagnostic categories to characterize their needs.”
The authors called for interventions that link patients to outpatient care within 5 days of a mental health ED discharge.
The editorialists wrote: “We believe it is time for a “child mental health moonshot,” and call on the field and its funders to come together to launch the next wave of bold mental health research for the benefit of these children and their families who so desperately need our support.”
Things may even be worse in light of COVID
David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview the numbers won’t surprise clinicians who support these children or the patients’ families.
He added that he wouldn’t be surprised if things are even worse now after this study’s data collection, “as COVID and other factors have driven more mental health professionals away from many of the people who need them the most.”
The study does present new evidence that quick access to care is particularly tough for young people who aren’t already established in care, he noted.
“As wait lists grow at outpatient clinics, we are seeing ever stronger need for centers willing and able to provide actual mental health assessment and treatment for people right ‘off the street,’” he said.
Dr. Rettew emphasized that, because mental health conditions rarely improve quickly, having a timely follow-up appointment is important, but won’t likely bring quick improvement.
He agreed with the editorialists’ argument and emphasized, “not only do we need to focus on more rapid care, but also more comprehensive and effective care.
“For an adolescent in crisis, achieving stability often involves more than a medication tweak and a supportive conversation,” Dr. Rettew said. “Rather, it can require an intensive multimodal approach that addresses things like family financial stressors, parental mental health and substance use concerns, school supports, and health promotion or lifestyle changes. What we desperately need are more teams that can quickly intervene on all these levels.”
Addressing problems before crisis is essential
Ideally, teams would address these issues before a crisis. That helps support the “moonshot” charge the editorialists suggest, which “would significantly disrupt the current way we value different components of our health care system,” Dr. Rettew said.
He highlighted a statistic that may get lost in the data: Nearly 40% of youth in enough danger to need an ED visit had no more than one health-related appointment of any kind in the previous year.
“To me, this speaks volumes about the need for earlier involvement before things escalate to the level of an emergency,” Dr. Rettew said.
The authors and editorialists declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rettew is author of the book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”
Only 56% of children enrolled in Medicaid received any outpatient follow-up within 30 days after a mental health emergency department discharge, according to results of a large study released in Pediatrics.
Fewer than one-third (31.2%) had an outpatient visit within a week after a mental health ED discharge.
Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 28,551 children ages 6-17 years old who had mental health discharges from EDs from January 2018 to June 2019.
The researchers, led by Jennifer A. Hoffmann, MD, MS, with the division of emergency medicine, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and Northwestern University, Chicago, also analyzed the effect that having a timely follow-up had on whether the child was likely to return to the ED.
Follow-up within 30 days cuts risk of quick return to ED
They found that follow-up within 30 days was linked with a 26% decreased risk of return within 5 days of the initial ED discharge (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.91).
The researchers also found racial disparities in the data. The odds for getting follow-up outpatient care were lower for non-Hispanic Black children, for children with fee-for-service insurance, and for children with no previous mental health outpatient visits.
The numbers were particularly striking for Black children, who were 10% less likely to get outpatient follow-up than their White counterparts.
In addition, 27% of all children in this sample returned to the ED for mental health-related symptoms within 6 months, 20% spent more than 48 hours in the ED for their initial mental health visit, and children with 14 or more mental health outpatient visits had five times higher adjusted odds of follow-up within 7 days and 9.5 times higher adjusted odds of follow-up within 30 days, compared with children with no outpatient mental health visits in the previous year.
A ‘mental health system of care in crisis’
In an accompanying editorial, Hannah E. Karpman, MSW, PhD, with the department of pediatrics, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, and colleagues said those statistics help expose other signs of “a pediatric mental health system of care in crisis.”
If one in five children are spending more than 2 days in the ED for their initial mental health visit, they wrote, that signals the follow-up care they need is not readily available.
The 27% returning to the ED shows that, even if the children are getting outpatient services, that environment is failing them, they noted.
Additionally, 28% of children presented with more than four mental health diagnoses, “suggesting poor diagnostic specificity or perhaps inadequate diagnostic categories to characterize their needs.”
The authors called for interventions that link patients to outpatient care within 5 days of a mental health ED discharge.
The editorialists wrote: “We believe it is time for a “child mental health moonshot,” and call on the field and its funders to come together to launch the next wave of bold mental health research for the benefit of these children and their families who so desperately need our support.”
Things may even be worse in light of COVID
David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview the numbers won’t surprise clinicians who support these children or the patients’ families.
He added that he wouldn’t be surprised if things are even worse now after this study’s data collection, “as COVID and other factors have driven more mental health professionals away from many of the people who need them the most.”
The study does present new evidence that quick access to care is particularly tough for young people who aren’t already established in care, he noted.
“As wait lists grow at outpatient clinics, we are seeing ever stronger need for centers willing and able to provide actual mental health assessment and treatment for people right ‘off the street,’” he said.
Dr. Rettew emphasized that, because mental health conditions rarely improve quickly, having a timely follow-up appointment is important, but won’t likely bring quick improvement.
He agreed with the editorialists’ argument and emphasized, “not only do we need to focus on more rapid care, but also more comprehensive and effective care.
“For an adolescent in crisis, achieving stability often involves more than a medication tweak and a supportive conversation,” Dr. Rettew said. “Rather, it can require an intensive multimodal approach that addresses things like family financial stressors, parental mental health and substance use concerns, school supports, and health promotion or lifestyle changes. What we desperately need are more teams that can quickly intervene on all these levels.”
Addressing problems before crisis is essential
Ideally, teams would address these issues before a crisis. That helps support the “moonshot” charge the editorialists suggest, which “would significantly disrupt the current way we value different components of our health care system,” Dr. Rettew said.
He highlighted a statistic that may get lost in the data: Nearly 40% of youth in enough danger to need an ED visit had no more than one health-related appointment of any kind in the previous year.
“To me, this speaks volumes about the need for earlier involvement before things escalate to the level of an emergency,” Dr. Rettew said.
The authors and editorialists declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rettew is author of the book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”
Only 56% of children enrolled in Medicaid received any outpatient follow-up within 30 days after a mental health emergency department discharge, according to results of a large study released in Pediatrics.
Fewer than one-third (31.2%) had an outpatient visit within a week after a mental health ED discharge.
Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 28,551 children ages 6-17 years old who had mental health discharges from EDs from January 2018 to June 2019.
The researchers, led by Jennifer A. Hoffmann, MD, MS, with the division of emergency medicine, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and Northwestern University, Chicago, also analyzed the effect that having a timely follow-up had on whether the child was likely to return to the ED.
Follow-up within 30 days cuts risk of quick return to ED
They found that follow-up within 30 days was linked with a 26% decreased risk of return within 5 days of the initial ED discharge (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.91).
The researchers also found racial disparities in the data. The odds for getting follow-up outpatient care were lower for non-Hispanic Black children, for children with fee-for-service insurance, and for children with no previous mental health outpatient visits.
The numbers were particularly striking for Black children, who were 10% less likely to get outpatient follow-up than their White counterparts.
In addition, 27% of all children in this sample returned to the ED for mental health-related symptoms within 6 months, 20% spent more than 48 hours in the ED for their initial mental health visit, and children with 14 or more mental health outpatient visits had five times higher adjusted odds of follow-up within 7 days and 9.5 times higher adjusted odds of follow-up within 30 days, compared with children with no outpatient mental health visits in the previous year.
A ‘mental health system of care in crisis’
In an accompanying editorial, Hannah E. Karpman, MSW, PhD, with the department of pediatrics, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, and colleagues said those statistics help expose other signs of “a pediatric mental health system of care in crisis.”
If one in five children are spending more than 2 days in the ED for their initial mental health visit, they wrote, that signals the follow-up care they need is not readily available.
The 27% returning to the ED shows that, even if the children are getting outpatient services, that environment is failing them, they noted.
Additionally, 28% of children presented with more than four mental health diagnoses, “suggesting poor diagnostic specificity or perhaps inadequate diagnostic categories to characterize their needs.”
The authors called for interventions that link patients to outpatient care within 5 days of a mental health ED discharge.
The editorialists wrote: “We believe it is time for a “child mental health moonshot,” and call on the field and its funders to come together to launch the next wave of bold mental health research for the benefit of these children and their families who so desperately need our support.”
Things may even be worse in light of COVID
David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview the numbers won’t surprise clinicians who support these children or the patients’ families.
He added that he wouldn’t be surprised if things are even worse now after this study’s data collection, “as COVID and other factors have driven more mental health professionals away from many of the people who need them the most.”
The study does present new evidence that quick access to care is particularly tough for young people who aren’t already established in care, he noted.
“As wait lists grow at outpatient clinics, we are seeing ever stronger need for centers willing and able to provide actual mental health assessment and treatment for people right ‘off the street,’” he said.
Dr. Rettew emphasized that, because mental health conditions rarely improve quickly, having a timely follow-up appointment is important, but won’t likely bring quick improvement.
He agreed with the editorialists’ argument and emphasized, “not only do we need to focus on more rapid care, but also more comprehensive and effective care.
“For an adolescent in crisis, achieving stability often involves more than a medication tweak and a supportive conversation,” Dr. Rettew said. “Rather, it can require an intensive multimodal approach that addresses things like family financial stressors, parental mental health and substance use concerns, school supports, and health promotion or lifestyle changes. What we desperately need are more teams that can quickly intervene on all these levels.”
Addressing problems before crisis is essential
Ideally, teams would address these issues before a crisis. That helps support the “moonshot” charge the editorialists suggest, which “would significantly disrupt the current way we value different components of our health care system,” Dr. Rettew said.
He highlighted a statistic that may get lost in the data: Nearly 40% of youth in enough danger to need an ED visit had no more than one health-related appointment of any kind in the previous year.
“To me, this speaks volumes about the need for earlier involvement before things escalate to the level of an emergency,” Dr. Rettew said.
The authors and editorialists declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rettew is author of the book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”
FROM PEDIATRICS
The X-waiver is dead
In 2016, when Erin Schanning lost her brother Ethan to an overdose, she wanted to know what could have been done to have helped him. Ethan, who had struggled with opioids since getting a prescription for the drugs after a dental procedure in middle school, had tried dozens of treatments. But at the age of 30, he was gone.
“After my brother died, I started researching and was surprised to learn that there were many evidence-based ways to treat substance use disorder that he hadn’t had access to, even though he had doggedly pursued treatment,” Ms. Schanning told me in an interview. One of those treatments, buprenorphine, is one of the most effective tools that health care providers have to treat opioid use disorder. A partial opioid agonist, it reduces cravings and prevents overdose, decreasing mortality more effectively than almost any medication for any disease. Yet most providers have never prescribed it.
That may be about to change. The special license to prescribe the medication, commonly known as the “X-waiver,” was officially eliminated as part of the passage of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act. Immediately, following the passage of the Act, any provider with a DEA license became eligible to prescribe buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder, and limits on the number of patients they could treat were eliminated.
Previously, buprenorphine, which has a better safety profile than almost any other prescription opioid because of its ceiling effect on respiratory depression,nonetheless required providers to obtain a special license to prescribe it, and – prior to an executive order from the Biden administration – 8 to 24 hours of training to do so. This led to a misconception that buprenorphine was dangerous, and created barriers for treatment during the worst overdose crisis in our country’s history. More than 110,00 overdose deaths occurred in 2021, representing a 468% increase in the last 2 decades.
Along with the MAT Act, the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act was passed in the same spending bill, requiring all prescribers who obtain a DEA license to do 8 hours of training on the treatment of substance use disorders. According to the Act, addiction specialty societies will have a role in creating trainings. Medical schools and residencies will also be able to fulfill this requirement with a “comprehensive” curriculum that covers all approved medications for the treatment of substance use disorders.
The DEA has not yet confirmed what training will be accepted, according to the Chief Medical Officer of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Neeraj Gandotra, MD, who spoke to me in an interview. However, it is required to do so by April 5, 2023. Dr. Gandotra also emphasized that state and local laws, as well as insurance requirements, remain in place, and may place other constraints on prescribing. According to the Act, this new rule will be in effect by June 2023.
As an addiction medicine specialist and longtime buprenorphine prescriber, I am excited about these changes but wary of lingering resistance among health care providers. Will providers who have chosen not to get an X-waiver now look for another reason to not treat patients with substance use disorders?
Ms. Schanning remains hopeful. “I’m incredibly optimistic that health care providers are going to learn about buprenorphine and prescribe it to patients, and that patients are going to start asking about this medication,” she told me. “Seven in 10 providers say that they do feel an obligation to treat their patients with [opioid use disorder], but the federal government has made it very difficult to do so.”
Now with the X-waiver gone, providers and patients may be able to push for a long overdue shift in how we treat and conceptualize substance use disorders, she noted.
“Health care providers need to recognize substance use disorder as a medical condition that deserves treatment, and to speak about it like a medical condition,” Ms. Schanning said, by, for instance, moving away from using words such as “abuse” and “clean” and, instead, talking about treatable substance use disorders that can improve with evidence-based care, such as buprenorphine and methadone. “We also need to share stories of success and hope with people,” she added. “Once you’ve seen how someone can be transformed by treatment, it’s really difficult to say that substance use disorder is a character flaw, or their fault.”
A patient-centered approach
Over the past decade of practicing medicine, I have experienced this transformation personally. In residency, I believed that people had to be ready for help, to stop using, to change. I failed to recognize that many of those same people were asking me for help, and I wasn’t offering what they needed. The person who had to change was me.
As I moved toward a patient-centered approach, lowering barriers to starting and remaining in treatment, and collaborating with teams that could meet people wherever they might be, addictions became the most rewarding part of my practice.
I have never had more people thank me spontaneously and deeply for the care I provide. Plus, I have never seen a more profound change in the students I work with than when they witness someone with a substance use disorder offered treatment that works.
The X-waiver was not the only barrier to care, and the overdose crisis is not slowing down. But maybe with a new tool widely accessible, more of us will be ready to help.
Dr. Poorman is board certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine, assistant professor of medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, and provides primary care and addiction services in Chicago. Her views do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer. She has reported no relevant disclosures, and she serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
In 2016, when Erin Schanning lost her brother Ethan to an overdose, she wanted to know what could have been done to have helped him. Ethan, who had struggled with opioids since getting a prescription for the drugs after a dental procedure in middle school, had tried dozens of treatments. But at the age of 30, he was gone.
“After my brother died, I started researching and was surprised to learn that there were many evidence-based ways to treat substance use disorder that he hadn’t had access to, even though he had doggedly pursued treatment,” Ms. Schanning told me in an interview. One of those treatments, buprenorphine, is one of the most effective tools that health care providers have to treat opioid use disorder. A partial opioid agonist, it reduces cravings and prevents overdose, decreasing mortality more effectively than almost any medication for any disease. Yet most providers have never prescribed it.
That may be about to change. The special license to prescribe the medication, commonly known as the “X-waiver,” was officially eliminated as part of the passage of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act. Immediately, following the passage of the Act, any provider with a DEA license became eligible to prescribe buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder, and limits on the number of patients they could treat were eliminated.
Previously, buprenorphine, which has a better safety profile than almost any other prescription opioid because of its ceiling effect on respiratory depression,nonetheless required providers to obtain a special license to prescribe it, and – prior to an executive order from the Biden administration – 8 to 24 hours of training to do so. This led to a misconception that buprenorphine was dangerous, and created barriers for treatment during the worst overdose crisis in our country’s history. More than 110,00 overdose deaths occurred in 2021, representing a 468% increase in the last 2 decades.
Along with the MAT Act, the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act was passed in the same spending bill, requiring all prescribers who obtain a DEA license to do 8 hours of training on the treatment of substance use disorders. According to the Act, addiction specialty societies will have a role in creating trainings. Medical schools and residencies will also be able to fulfill this requirement with a “comprehensive” curriculum that covers all approved medications for the treatment of substance use disorders.
The DEA has not yet confirmed what training will be accepted, according to the Chief Medical Officer of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Neeraj Gandotra, MD, who spoke to me in an interview. However, it is required to do so by April 5, 2023. Dr. Gandotra also emphasized that state and local laws, as well as insurance requirements, remain in place, and may place other constraints on prescribing. According to the Act, this new rule will be in effect by June 2023.
As an addiction medicine specialist and longtime buprenorphine prescriber, I am excited about these changes but wary of lingering resistance among health care providers. Will providers who have chosen not to get an X-waiver now look for another reason to not treat patients with substance use disorders?
Ms. Schanning remains hopeful. “I’m incredibly optimistic that health care providers are going to learn about buprenorphine and prescribe it to patients, and that patients are going to start asking about this medication,” she told me. “Seven in 10 providers say that they do feel an obligation to treat their patients with [opioid use disorder], but the federal government has made it very difficult to do so.”
Now with the X-waiver gone, providers and patients may be able to push for a long overdue shift in how we treat and conceptualize substance use disorders, she noted.
“Health care providers need to recognize substance use disorder as a medical condition that deserves treatment, and to speak about it like a medical condition,” Ms. Schanning said, by, for instance, moving away from using words such as “abuse” and “clean” and, instead, talking about treatable substance use disorders that can improve with evidence-based care, such as buprenorphine and methadone. “We also need to share stories of success and hope with people,” she added. “Once you’ve seen how someone can be transformed by treatment, it’s really difficult to say that substance use disorder is a character flaw, or their fault.”
A patient-centered approach
Over the past decade of practicing medicine, I have experienced this transformation personally. In residency, I believed that people had to be ready for help, to stop using, to change. I failed to recognize that many of those same people were asking me for help, and I wasn’t offering what they needed. The person who had to change was me.
As I moved toward a patient-centered approach, lowering barriers to starting and remaining in treatment, and collaborating with teams that could meet people wherever they might be, addictions became the most rewarding part of my practice.
I have never had more people thank me spontaneously and deeply for the care I provide. Plus, I have never seen a more profound change in the students I work with than when they witness someone with a substance use disorder offered treatment that works.
The X-waiver was not the only barrier to care, and the overdose crisis is not slowing down. But maybe with a new tool widely accessible, more of us will be ready to help.
Dr. Poorman is board certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine, assistant professor of medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, and provides primary care and addiction services in Chicago. Her views do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer. She has reported no relevant disclosures, and she serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
In 2016, when Erin Schanning lost her brother Ethan to an overdose, she wanted to know what could have been done to have helped him. Ethan, who had struggled with opioids since getting a prescription for the drugs after a dental procedure in middle school, had tried dozens of treatments. But at the age of 30, he was gone.
“After my brother died, I started researching and was surprised to learn that there were many evidence-based ways to treat substance use disorder that he hadn’t had access to, even though he had doggedly pursued treatment,” Ms. Schanning told me in an interview. One of those treatments, buprenorphine, is one of the most effective tools that health care providers have to treat opioid use disorder. A partial opioid agonist, it reduces cravings and prevents overdose, decreasing mortality more effectively than almost any medication for any disease. Yet most providers have never prescribed it.
That may be about to change. The special license to prescribe the medication, commonly known as the “X-waiver,” was officially eliminated as part of the passage of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act. Immediately, following the passage of the Act, any provider with a DEA license became eligible to prescribe buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder, and limits on the number of patients they could treat were eliminated.
Previously, buprenorphine, which has a better safety profile than almost any other prescription opioid because of its ceiling effect on respiratory depression,nonetheless required providers to obtain a special license to prescribe it, and – prior to an executive order from the Biden administration – 8 to 24 hours of training to do so. This led to a misconception that buprenorphine was dangerous, and created barriers for treatment during the worst overdose crisis in our country’s history. More than 110,00 overdose deaths occurred in 2021, representing a 468% increase in the last 2 decades.
Along with the MAT Act, the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act was passed in the same spending bill, requiring all prescribers who obtain a DEA license to do 8 hours of training on the treatment of substance use disorders. According to the Act, addiction specialty societies will have a role in creating trainings. Medical schools and residencies will also be able to fulfill this requirement with a “comprehensive” curriculum that covers all approved medications for the treatment of substance use disorders.
The DEA has not yet confirmed what training will be accepted, according to the Chief Medical Officer of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Neeraj Gandotra, MD, who spoke to me in an interview. However, it is required to do so by April 5, 2023. Dr. Gandotra also emphasized that state and local laws, as well as insurance requirements, remain in place, and may place other constraints on prescribing. According to the Act, this new rule will be in effect by June 2023.
As an addiction medicine specialist and longtime buprenorphine prescriber, I am excited about these changes but wary of lingering resistance among health care providers. Will providers who have chosen not to get an X-waiver now look for another reason to not treat patients with substance use disorders?
Ms. Schanning remains hopeful. “I’m incredibly optimistic that health care providers are going to learn about buprenorphine and prescribe it to patients, and that patients are going to start asking about this medication,” she told me. “Seven in 10 providers say that they do feel an obligation to treat their patients with [opioid use disorder], but the federal government has made it very difficult to do so.”
Now with the X-waiver gone, providers and patients may be able to push for a long overdue shift in how we treat and conceptualize substance use disorders, she noted.
“Health care providers need to recognize substance use disorder as a medical condition that deserves treatment, and to speak about it like a medical condition,” Ms. Schanning said, by, for instance, moving away from using words such as “abuse” and “clean” and, instead, talking about treatable substance use disorders that can improve with evidence-based care, such as buprenorphine and methadone. “We also need to share stories of success and hope with people,” she added. “Once you’ve seen how someone can be transformed by treatment, it’s really difficult to say that substance use disorder is a character flaw, or their fault.”
A patient-centered approach
Over the past decade of practicing medicine, I have experienced this transformation personally. In residency, I believed that people had to be ready for help, to stop using, to change. I failed to recognize that many of those same people were asking me for help, and I wasn’t offering what they needed. The person who had to change was me.
As I moved toward a patient-centered approach, lowering barriers to starting and remaining in treatment, and collaborating with teams that could meet people wherever they might be, addictions became the most rewarding part of my practice.
I have never had more people thank me spontaneously and deeply for the care I provide. Plus, I have never seen a more profound change in the students I work with than when they witness someone with a substance use disorder offered treatment that works.
The X-waiver was not the only barrier to care, and the overdose crisis is not slowing down. But maybe with a new tool widely accessible, more of us will be ready to help.
Dr. Poorman is board certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine, assistant professor of medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, and provides primary care and addiction services in Chicago. Her views do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer. She has reported no relevant disclosures, and she serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
Scientists create ‘vagina on a chip’: What to know
For years, women’s health advocates have argued that far more research is needed on women’s bodies and health. The world’s first-ever “vagina on a chip,” recently developed at Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering in Boston, could go a long way to making that happen.
“Women’s health has not received the attention it deserves,” says Don Ingber, MD, PhD, who led the team that created the vagina chip. The advance quickly drew media attention after it was reported in the journal Microbiome. But researchers hope for more than headlines. They see the chip as a way to facilitate vaginal health research and open the door to vital new treatments.
By now, you may have heard of “organs on chips”: tiny devices about the size of a flash drive that are designed to mimic the biological activity of human organs. These glass chips contain living human cells within grooves that allow the passage of fluid, to either maintain or disrupt the cells’ function. So far, Dr. Ingber and his team at the Wyss Institute have developed more than 15 organ chip models, including chips that mimic the lung, intestine, kidney, and bone marrow.
The idea to develop a vagina chip grew out of research, funded by the Gates Foundation, on a childhood disease called environmental enteric dysfunction, an intestinal disease most commonly found in low-resource nations that is the second leading cause of death in children under 5. That’s when Dr. Ingber discovered just how much the child’s microbiome influences this disease.
Stemming from that work, the Gates Foundation turned its attention to newborn health – in particular, the impact of bacterial vaginosis, an imbalance in the vagina’s bacterial makeup. Bacterial vaginosis occurs in one out of four women worldwide and has been linked to premature birth as well as HIV, HPV persistence, and cervical cancer.
The goal was to test “live biotherapeutic products,” or living microbes like probiotics, that might restore the vagina’s microbiome to health.
No other preclinical model exists to perform tests like that, says Dr. Ingber.
“The vagina chip is a way to help make some advances,” he says.
The Gates Foundation recognized that women’s reproductive health is a major issue, not only in low-income nations, but everywhere around the world. As the project evolved, Dr. Ingber began to hear from female colleagues about how neglected women’s reproductive health is in medical science.
“It is something I became sensitive to and realized this is just the starting point,” Dr. Ingber says.
Take bacterial vaginosis, for example. Since 1982, treatment has revolved around the same two antibiotics. That’s partly because there is no animal model to study. No other species has the same vaginal bacterial community as humans do.
That makes developing any new therapy “incredibly challenging,” explains Caroline Mitchell, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a member of the consortium.
It turns out, replicating the vagina in a lab dish is, to use the technical term, very hard.
“That’s where a vagina chip offers an opportunity,” Dr. Mitchell says. “It’s not super-high throughput, but it’s way more high throughput than a [human] clinical trial.”
As such, the vagina chip could help scientists find new treatments much faster.
Like Dr. Ingber, Dr. Mitchell also sees the chip as a way to bring more attention to the largely unmet needs in female reproductive medicine.
“Women’s reproductive health has been under-resourced, under-prioritized, and largely disregarded for decades,” she says. And the time may be ripe for change: Dr. Mitchell says she was encouraged by the National Institutes of Health’s Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference, held in 2021 in response to a congressional request to address women’s health research efforts.
Beyond bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Mitchell imagines the chip could help scientists find new treatments for vaginal yeast infection (candidiasis), chlamydia, and endometriosis. As with bacterial vaginosis, medicines for vaginal yeast infections have not advanced in decades, Dr. Mitchell says. Efforts to develop a vaccine for chlamydia – which can cause permanent damage to a woman’s reproductive system – have dragged on for many years. And endometriosis, an often painful condition in which the tissue that makes up the uterine lining grows outside the uterus, remains under-researched despite affecting 10% of childbearing-age women.
While some mouse models are used in chlamydia research, it’s hard to say if they’ll translate to humans, given the vaginal and cervical bacterial differences.
“Our understanding of the basic physiology of the environment of the vagina and cervix is another area where we’re woefully ignorant,” Dr. Mitchell says.
To that end, Dr. Ingber’s team is developing more complex chips mimicking the vagina and the cervix. One of his team members wants to use the chips to study infertility. The researchers have already used the chips to see how bacterial vaginosis and mucous changes impact the way sperm migrates up the reproductive tract.
The lab is now linking vagina and cervix chips together to study viral infections of the cervix, like HPV, and all types of bacterial diseases of the vaginal tract. By applying cervical mucus to the vagina chip, they hope to learn more about how female reproductive tissues respond to infection and inflammation.
“I always say that organ chips are like synthetic biology at the cell tissue and organ level,” says Dr. Ingber. “You start simple and see if you [can] mimic a clinical situation.”
As they make the chips more complex – perhaps by adding blood vessel cells and female hormones – Dr. Ingber foresees being able to study the response to hormonal changes during the menstrual cycle.
“We can begin to explore the effects of cycling over time as well as other types of hormonal effects,” he says.
Dr. Ingber also envisions linking the vagina chip to other organ chips – he’s already succeeded in linking eight different organ types together. But for now, the team hopes the vagina chip will enhance our understanding of basic female reproductive biology and speed up the process of developing new treatments for women’s health.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
For years, women’s health advocates have argued that far more research is needed on women’s bodies and health. The world’s first-ever “vagina on a chip,” recently developed at Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering in Boston, could go a long way to making that happen.
“Women’s health has not received the attention it deserves,” says Don Ingber, MD, PhD, who led the team that created the vagina chip. The advance quickly drew media attention after it was reported in the journal Microbiome. But researchers hope for more than headlines. They see the chip as a way to facilitate vaginal health research and open the door to vital new treatments.
By now, you may have heard of “organs on chips”: tiny devices about the size of a flash drive that are designed to mimic the biological activity of human organs. These glass chips contain living human cells within grooves that allow the passage of fluid, to either maintain or disrupt the cells’ function. So far, Dr. Ingber and his team at the Wyss Institute have developed more than 15 organ chip models, including chips that mimic the lung, intestine, kidney, and bone marrow.
The idea to develop a vagina chip grew out of research, funded by the Gates Foundation, on a childhood disease called environmental enteric dysfunction, an intestinal disease most commonly found in low-resource nations that is the second leading cause of death in children under 5. That’s when Dr. Ingber discovered just how much the child’s microbiome influences this disease.
Stemming from that work, the Gates Foundation turned its attention to newborn health – in particular, the impact of bacterial vaginosis, an imbalance in the vagina’s bacterial makeup. Bacterial vaginosis occurs in one out of four women worldwide and has been linked to premature birth as well as HIV, HPV persistence, and cervical cancer.
The goal was to test “live biotherapeutic products,” or living microbes like probiotics, that might restore the vagina’s microbiome to health.
No other preclinical model exists to perform tests like that, says Dr. Ingber.
“The vagina chip is a way to help make some advances,” he says.
The Gates Foundation recognized that women’s reproductive health is a major issue, not only in low-income nations, but everywhere around the world. As the project evolved, Dr. Ingber began to hear from female colleagues about how neglected women’s reproductive health is in medical science.
“It is something I became sensitive to and realized this is just the starting point,” Dr. Ingber says.
Take bacterial vaginosis, for example. Since 1982, treatment has revolved around the same two antibiotics. That’s partly because there is no animal model to study. No other species has the same vaginal bacterial community as humans do.
That makes developing any new therapy “incredibly challenging,” explains Caroline Mitchell, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a member of the consortium.
It turns out, replicating the vagina in a lab dish is, to use the technical term, very hard.
“That’s where a vagina chip offers an opportunity,” Dr. Mitchell says. “It’s not super-high throughput, but it’s way more high throughput than a [human] clinical trial.”
As such, the vagina chip could help scientists find new treatments much faster.
Like Dr. Ingber, Dr. Mitchell also sees the chip as a way to bring more attention to the largely unmet needs in female reproductive medicine.
“Women’s reproductive health has been under-resourced, under-prioritized, and largely disregarded for decades,” she says. And the time may be ripe for change: Dr. Mitchell says she was encouraged by the National Institutes of Health’s Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference, held in 2021 in response to a congressional request to address women’s health research efforts.
Beyond bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Mitchell imagines the chip could help scientists find new treatments for vaginal yeast infection (candidiasis), chlamydia, and endometriosis. As with bacterial vaginosis, medicines for vaginal yeast infections have not advanced in decades, Dr. Mitchell says. Efforts to develop a vaccine for chlamydia – which can cause permanent damage to a woman’s reproductive system – have dragged on for many years. And endometriosis, an often painful condition in which the tissue that makes up the uterine lining grows outside the uterus, remains under-researched despite affecting 10% of childbearing-age women.
While some mouse models are used in chlamydia research, it’s hard to say if they’ll translate to humans, given the vaginal and cervical bacterial differences.
“Our understanding of the basic physiology of the environment of the vagina and cervix is another area where we’re woefully ignorant,” Dr. Mitchell says.
To that end, Dr. Ingber’s team is developing more complex chips mimicking the vagina and the cervix. One of his team members wants to use the chips to study infertility. The researchers have already used the chips to see how bacterial vaginosis and mucous changes impact the way sperm migrates up the reproductive tract.
The lab is now linking vagina and cervix chips together to study viral infections of the cervix, like HPV, and all types of bacterial diseases of the vaginal tract. By applying cervical mucus to the vagina chip, they hope to learn more about how female reproductive tissues respond to infection and inflammation.
“I always say that organ chips are like synthetic biology at the cell tissue and organ level,” says Dr. Ingber. “You start simple and see if you [can] mimic a clinical situation.”
As they make the chips more complex – perhaps by adding blood vessel cells and female hormones – Dr. Ingber foresees being able to study the response to hormonal changes during the menstrual cycle.
“We can begin to explore the effects of cycling over time as well as other types of hormonal effects,” he says.
Dr. Ingber also envisions linking the vagina chip to other organ chips – he’s already succeeded in linking eight different organ types together. But for now, the team hopes the vagina chip will enhance our understanding of basic female reproductive biology and speed up the process of developing new treatments for women’s health.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
For years, women’s health advocates have argued that far more research is needed on women’s bodies and health. The world’s first-ever “vagina on a chip,” recently developed at Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering in Boston, could go a long way to making that happen.
“Women’s health has not received the attention it deserves,” says Don Ingber, MD, PhD, who led the team that created the vagina chip. The advance quickly drew media attention after it was reported in the journal Microbiome. But researchers hope for more than headlines. They see the chip as a way to facilitate vaginal health research and open the door to vital new treatments.
By now, you may have heard of “organs on chips”: tiny devices about the size of a flash drive that are designed to mimic the biological activity of human organs. These glass chips contain living human cells within grooves that allow the passage of fluid, to either maintain or disrupt the cells’ function. So far, Dr. Ingber and his team at the Wyss Institute have developed more than 15 organ chip models, including chips that mimic the lung, intestine, kidney, and bone marrow.
The idea to develop a vagina chip grew out of research, funded by the Gates Foundation, on a childhood disease called environmental enteric dysfunction, an intestinal disease most commonly found in low-resource nations that is the second leading cause of death in children under 5. That’s when Dr. Ingber discovered just how much the child’s microbiome influences this disease.
Stemming from that work, the Gates Foundation turned its attention to newborn health – in particular, the impact of bacterial vaginosis, an imbalance in the vagina’s bacterial makeup. Bacterial vaginosis occurs in one out of four women worldwide and has been linked to premature birth as well as HIV, HPV persistence, and cervical cancer.
The goal was to test “live biotherapeutic products,” or living microbes like probiotics, that might restore the vagina’s microbiome to health.
No other preclinical model exists to perform tests like that, says Dr. Ingber.
“The vagina chip is a way to help make some advances,” he says.
The Gates Foundation recognized that women’s reproductive health is a major issue, not only in low-income nations, but everywhere around the world. As the project evolved, Dr. Ingber began to hear from female colleagues about how neglected women’s reproductive health is in medical science.
“It is something I became sensitive to and realized this is just the starting point,” Dr. Ingber says.
Take bacterial vaginosis, for example. Since 1982, treatment has revolved around the same two antibiotics. That’s partly because there is no animal model to study. No other species has the same vaginal bacterial community as humans do.
That makes developing any new therapy “incredibly challenging,” explains Caroline Mitchell, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a member of the consortium.
It turns out, replicating the vagina in a lab dish is, to use the technical term, very hard.
“That’s where a vagina chip offers an opportunity,” Dr. Mitchell says. “It’s not super-high throughput, but it’s way more high throughput than a [human] clinical trial.”
As such, the vagina chip could help scientists find new treatments much faster.
Like Dr. Ingber, Dr. Mitchell also sees the chip as a way to bring more attention to the largely unmet needs in female reproductive medicine.
“Women’s reproductive health has been under-resourced, under-prioritized, and largely disregarded for decades,” she says. And the time may be ripe for change: Dr. Mitchell says she was encouraged by the National Institutes of Health’s Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference, held in 2021 in response to a congressional request to address women’s health research efforts.
Beyond bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Mitchell imagines the chip could help scientists find new treatments for vaginal yeast infection (candidiasis), chlamydia, and endometriosis. As with bacterial vaginosis, medicines for vaginal yeast infections have not advanced in decades, Dr. Mitchell says. Efforts to develop a vaccine for chlamydia – which can cause permanent damage to a woman’s reproductive system – have dragged on for many years. And endometriosis, an often painful condition in which the tissue that makes up the uterine lining grows outside the uterus, remains under-researched despite affecting 10% of childbearing-age women.
While some mouse models are used in chlamydia research, it’s hard to say if they’ll translate to humans, given the vaginal and cervical bacterial differences.
“Our understanding of the basic physiology of the environment of the vagina and cervix is another area where we’re woefully ignorant,” Dr. Mitchell says.
To that end, Dr. Ingber’s team is developing more complex chips mimicking the vagina and the cervix. One of his team members wants to use the chips to study infertility. The researchers have already used the chips to see how bacterial vaginosis and mucous changes impact the way sperm migrates up the reproductive tract.
The lab is now linking vagina and cervix chips together to study viral infections of the cervix, like HPV, and all types of bacterial diseases of the vaginal tract. By applying cervical mucus to the vagina chip, they hope to learn more about how female reproductive tissues respond to infection and inflammation.
“I always say that organ chips are like synthetic biology at the cell tissue and organ level,” says Dr. Ingber. “You start simple and see if you [can] mimic a clinical situation.”
As they make the chips more complex – perhaps by adding blood vessel cells and female hormones – Dr. Ingber foresees being able to study the response to hormonal changes during the menstrual cycle.
“We can begin to explore the effects of cycling over time as well as other types of hormonal effects,” he says.
Dr. Ingber also envisions linking the vagina chip to other organ chips – he’s already succeeded in linking eight different organ types together. But for now, the team hopes the vagina chip will enhance our understanding of basic female reproductive biology and speed up the process of developing new treatments for women’s health.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM MICROBIOME
AAP approves 2023 child and adolescent immunization schedule
The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2023.
In a policy statement published online in the journal Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations do not include major changes from those released in 2022 by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In one small shift, COVID-19 is now addressed in the main text instead of being relegated to the notes section.
“And a new vaccine – Priorix [GlaxoSmithKline] – has been added for MMR [measles, mumps, rubella], so now there are two available,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases, told this news organization. “There’s also a second pneumococcal conjugate vaccine listed, PCV15, and this and PCV13 can essentially be used interchangeably.”
Minor updates to the schedule, reflected on the cover page, relate to vaccines for COVID-19, dengue fever, and pneumococcal disease, added Dr. O’Leary, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.
The committee also changed layouts to improve the usability of the schedule. Updated annually, the guidance provides a table on recommended pediatric immunizations from birth to age 18 years, and catch-up recommendations for children aged 4 months to 18 years who start their vaccinations late or are more than 1 month behind the recommended age for vaccine administration.
“We hope this annual update will encourage clinicians to make sure all their patients are up to date on their routine vaccinations,” Dr. O’Leary said. “It’s an opportunity to develop strategies to improve vaccination rates.”
The 2023 schedule follows news from the CDC that kindergarten vaccination rates declined during the 2021-2022 school year. Only 93% of kindergarteners obtained full vaccinations, representing a drop of 1 percentage point from the year before and 2 percentage points from the 2019-2020 school year.
The dip in coverage has been attributed to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. AAP advises health care professionals to urge families to make sure their child’s vaccines are current.
Among other additions:
In Table 1
- MMR: Second vaccine added (Priorix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals)
- Pneumococcal disease: second conjugate vaccine, PCV15, added (Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme).
- COVID-19: New row added.
- Dengue: Text changed from “Seropositive in endemic areas only” to “Seropositive in endemic dengue areas.”
- Inactivated polio vaccine: “See Notes” added to the column for children aged 18 years.
In Table 2
- PCV: Dose 3 to dose 4 interval revised to align with ACIP’s recommendation for dose 4. This dose is necessary only for children ages 12-59 months regardless of risk, or age 60-71 months with any risk who received three doses before age 12 months.
A parent-friendly vaccine schedule for children and adolescents is available on the CDC’s website.
“Vaccines are essential for the health of our whole society, including children and adolescents,” Dr. O’Leary said in a press release from AAP. “These schedules provide a road map [that] parents and pediatricians can follow to help children get the vaccines they need so their immune systems will be ready to recognize and resist diseases.”
As previously, the 2023 schedule was adjusted to ensure consistency between the formats of the childhood/adolescent and adult immunization guidance. A meeting of stakeholder organizations in October 2022 harmonized the two formats.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2023.
In a policy statement published online in the journal Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations do not include major changes from those released in 2022 by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In one small shift, COVID-19 is now addressed in the main text instead of being relegated to the notes section.
“And a new vaccine – Priorix [GlaxoSmithKline] – has been added for MMR [measles, mumps, rubella], so now there are two available,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases, told this news organization. “There’s also a second pneumococcal conjugate vaccine listed, PCV15, and this and PCV13 can essentially be used interchangeably.”
Minor updates to the schedule, reflected on the cover page, relate to vaccines for COVID-19, dengue fever, and pneumococcal disease, added Dr. O’Leary, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.
The committee also changed layouts to improve the usability of the schedule. Updated annually, the guidance provides a table on recommended pediatric immunizations from birth to age 18 years, and catch-up recommendations for children aged 4 months to 18 years who start their vaccinations late or are more than 1 month behind the recommended age for vaccine administration.
“We hope this annual update will encourage clinicians to make sure all their patients are up to date on their routine vaccinations,” Dr. O’Leary said. “It’s an opportunity to develop strategies to improve vaccination rates.”
The 2023 schedule follows news from the CDC that kindergarten vaccination rates declined during the 2021-2022 school year. Only 93% of kindergarteners obtained full vaccinations, representing a drop of 1 percentage point from the year before and 2 percentage points from the 2019-2020 school year.
The dip in coverage has been attributed to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. AAP advises health care professionals to urge families to make sure their child’s vaccines are current.
Among other additions:
In Table 1
- MMR: Second vaccine added (Priorix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals)
- Pneumococcal disease: second conjugate vaccine, PCV15, added (Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme).
- COVID-19: New row added.
- Dengue: Text changed from “Seropositive in endemic areas only” to “Seropositive in endemic dengue areas.”
- Inactivated polio vaccine: “See Notes” added to the column for children aged 18 years.
In Table 2
- PCV: Dose 3 to dose 4 interval revised to align with ACIP’s recommendation for dose 4. This dose is necessary only for children ages 12-59 months regardless of risk, or age 60-71 months with any risk who received three doses before age 12 months.
A parent-friendly vaccine schedule for children and adolescents is available on the CDC’s website.
“Vaccines are essential for the health of our whole society, including children and adolescents,” Dr. O’Leary said in a press release from AAP. “These schedules provide a road map [that] parents and pediatricians can follow to help children get the vaccines they need so their immune systems will be ready to recognize and resist diseases.”
As previously, the 2023 schedule was adjusted to ensure consistency between the formats of the childhood/adolescent and adult immunization guidance. A meeting of stakeholder organizations in October 2022 harmonized the two formats.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2023.
In a policy statement published online in the journal Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations do not include major changes from those released in 2022 by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In one small shift, COVID-19 is now addressed in the main text instead of being relegated to the notes section.
“And a new vaccine – Priorix [GlaxoSmithKline] – has been added for MMR [measles, mumps, rubella], so now there are two available,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases, told this news organization. “There’s also a second pneumococcal conjugate vaccine listed, PCV15, and this and PCV13 can essentially be used interchangeably.”
Minor updates to the schedule, reflected on the cover page, relate to vaccines for COVID-19, dengue fever, and pneumococcal disease, added Dr. O’Leary, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.
The committee also changed layouts to improve the usability of the schedule. Updated annually, the guidance provides a table on recommended pediatric immunizations from birth to age 18 years, and catch-up recommendations for children aged 4 months to 18 years who start their vaccinations late or are more than 1 month behind the recommended age for vaccine administration.
“We hope this annual update will encourage clinicians to make sure all their patients are up to date on their routine vaccinations,” Dr. O’Leary said. “It’s an opportunity to develop strategies to improve vaccination rates.”
The 2023 schedule follows news from the CDC that kindergarten vaccination rates declined during the 2021-2022 school year. Only 93% of kindergarteners obtained full vaccinations, representing a drop of 1 percentage point from the year before and 2 percentage points from the 2019-2020 school year.
The dip in coverage has been attributed to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. AAP advises health care professionals to urge families to make sure their child’s vaccines are current.
Among other additions:
In Table 1
- MMR: Second vaccine added (Priorix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals)
- Pneumococcal disease: second conjugate vaccine, PCV15, added (Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme).
- COVID-19: New row added.
- Dengue: Text changed from “Seropositive in endemic areas only” to “Seropositive in endemic dengue areas.”
- Inactivated polio vaccine: “See Notes” added to the column for children aged 18 years.
In Table 2
- PCV: Dose 3 to dose 4 interval revised to align with ACIP’s recommendation for dose 4. This dose is necessary only for children ages 12-59 months regardless of risk, or age 60-71 months with any risk who received three doses before age 12 months.
A parent-friendly vaccine schedule for children and adolescents is available on the CDC’s website.
“Vaccines are essential for the health of our whole society, including children and adolescents,” Dr. O’Leary said in a press release from AAP. “These schedules provide a road map [that] parents and pediatricians can follow to help children get the vaccines they need so their immune systems will be ready to recognize and resist diseases.”
As previously, the 2023 schedule was adjusted to ensure consistency between the formats of the childhood/adolescent and adult immunization guidance. A meeting of stakeholder organizations in October 2022 harmonized the two formats.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM PEDIATRICS
AAP vs. AED on obesity treatment: Is there a middle ground?
While there is little controversy that both obesity and eating disorders represent important public health concerns, each deserving of clinical attention, how best to address one without worsening the other has been the crux of the discussion.
Sparking the dispute was a recent publication from the American Academy of Pediatrics that outlines the scope of the obesity problem and makes specific recommendations for assessment and treatment.1 The ambitious 100-page document, with 801 citations, puts new emphasis on the medical and psychological costs associated with obesity and advocates that pediatric primary care clinicians be more assertive in its treatment. While the guidelines certainly don’t urge the use of medications or surgery options as first-line treatment, the new recommendations do put them on the table as options.
In response, the Academy of Eating Disorders issued a public statement outlining several concerns regarding these guidelines that centered around a lack of a detailed plan to screen and address eating disorders; concerns that pediatricians don’t have the level of training and “skills” to conduct these conversations with patients and families with enough sensitivity; and worries about the premature use of antiobesity medications and surgeries in this population.2
It is fair to say that the critique was sharply worded, invoking physicians’ Hippocratic oath, criticizing their training, and suggesting that the guidelines could be biased by pharmaceutical industry influence (of note, the authors of the guidelines reported no ties to any pharmaceutical company). The AED urged that the guidelines be “revised” after consultation with other groups, including them.
Not unexpectedly, this response, especially coming from a group whose leadership and members are primarily nonphysicians, triggered its own sharp rebukes, including a recent commentary that counter-accused some of the eating disorder clinicians of being more concerned with their pet diets than actual health improvements.3
After everyone takes some deep breaths, it’s worth looking to see if there is some middle ground to explore here. The AAP document, to my reading, shows some important acknowledgments of the stigma associated with being overweight, even coming from pediatricians themselves. One passage reads, “Pediatricians and other PHCPs [primary health care providers] have been – and remain – a source of weight bias. They first need to uncover and address their own attitudes regarding children with obesity. Understanding weight stigma and bias, and learning how to reduce it in the clinical setting, sets the stage for productive discussions and improved relationships between families and pediatricians or other PHCPs.”
The guidelines also include some suggestions for how to talk to youth and families about obesity in less stigmatizing ways and offer a fairly lengthy summary of motivational interviewing techniques as they might apply to obesity discussions and lifestyle change. There is also a section on the interface between obesity and eating disorders with suggestions for further reading on their assessment and management.4
Indeed, research has looked specifically at how to minimize the triggering of eating disorders when addressing weight problems, a concern that has been raised by pediatricians themselves as documented in a qualitative study that also invoked the “do no harm” principle.5 One study asked more than 2,000 teens about how various conversations about weight affected their behavior.6 A main finding from that study was that conversations that focused on healthy eating rather than weight per se were less likely to be associated with unhealthy weight control behaviors. This message was emphasized in a publication that came from the AAP itself; it addresses the interaction between eating disorders and obesity.7 Strangely, however, the suggestion to try to minimize the focus on weight in discussions with patients isn’t well emphasized in the publication.
Overall, though, the AAP guidelines offer a well-informed and balanced approach to helping overweight youth. Pediatricians and other pediatric primary care clinicians are frequently called upon to engage in extremely sensitive and difficult discussions with patients and families on a wide variety of topics and most do so quite skillfully, especially when given the proper time and tools. While it is an area in which many of us, including mental health professionals, could do better, it’s no surprise that the AED’s disparaging of pediatricians’ communication competence came off as insulting. Similarly, productive dialogue would be likely enhanced if both sides avoided unfounded speculation about bias and motive and worked from a good faith perspective that all of us are engaged in this important discussion because of a desire to improve the lives of kids.
From my reading, it is quite a stretch to conclude that this document is urging a hasty and financially driven descent into GLP-1 analogues and bariatric surgery. That said, this wouldn’t be the first time a professional organization issues detailed, thoughtful, and nuanced care guidelines only to have them “condensed” within the practical confines of a busy office practice. Leaders would do well to remember that there remains much work to do to empower clinicians to be able to follow these guidelines as intended.
Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. His latest book is “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”
References
1. Hampl SE et al. Pediatrics. 2023;151(2):e2022060640.
2. Academy of Eating Disorders. Jan. 26, 2023. Accessed February 2, 2023. Available at The Academy for Eating Disorders Releases a Statement on the Recent American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Practice Guideline for Weight-Related Care: First, Do No Harm (newswise.com).
3. Freedhoff Y. MDedge Pediatrics 2023. Available at https://www.mdedge.com/pediatrics/article/260894/obesity/weight-bias-affects-views-kids-obesity-recommendations?channel=52.
4. Hornberger LL, Lane MA et al. Pediatrics. 2021;147(1):e202004027989.
5. Loth KA, Lebow J et al. Global Pediatric Health. 2021;8:1-9.
6. Berge JM et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2013;167(8):746-53.
7. Golden NH et al. Pediatrics. 2016;138(3):e20161649.
While there is little controversy that both obesity and eating disorders represent important public health concerns, each deserving of clinical attention, how best to address one without worsening the other has been the crux of the discussion.
Sparking the dispute was a recent publication from the American Academy of Pediatrics that outlines the scope of the obesity problem and makes specific recommendations for assessment and treatment.1 The ambitious 100-page document, with 801 citations, puts new emphasis on the medical and psychological costs associated with obesity and advocates that pediatric primary care clinicians be more assertive in its treatment. While the guidelines certainly don’t urge the use of medications or surgery options as first-line treatment, the new recommendations do put them on the table as options.
In response, the Academy of Eating Disorders issued a public statement outlining several concerns regarding these guidelines that centered around a lack of a detailed plan to screen and address eating disorders; concerns that pediatricians don’t have the level of training and “skills” to conduct these conversations with patients and families with enough sensitivity; and worries about the premature use of antiobesity medications and surgeries in this population.2
It is fair to say that the critique was sharply worded, invoking physicians’ Hippocratic oath, criticizing their training, and suggesting that the guidelines could be biased by pharmaceutical industry influence (of note, the authors of the guidelines reported no ties to any pharmaceutical company). The AED urged that the guidelines be “revised” after consultation with other groups, including them.
Not unexpectedly, this response, especially coming from a group whose leadership and members are primarily nonphysicians, triggered its own sharp rebukes, including a recent commentary that counter-accused some of the eating disorder clinicians of being more concerned with their pet diets than actual health improvements.3
After everyone takes some deep breaths, it’s worth looking to see if there is some middle ground to explore here. The AAP document, to my reading, shows some important acknowledgments of the stigma associated with being overweight, even coming from pediatricians themselves. One passage reads, “Pediatricians and other PHCPs [primary health care providers] have been – and remain – a source of weight bias. They first need to uncover and address their own attitudes regarding children with obesity. Understanding weight stigma and bias, and learning how to reduce it in the clinical setting, sets the stage for productive discussions and improved relationships between families and pediatricians or other PHCPs.”
The guidelines also include some suggestions for how to talk to youth and families about obesity in less stigmatizing ways and offer a fairly lengthy summary of motivational interviewing techniques as they might apply to obesity discussions and lifestyle change. There is also a section on the interface between obesity and eating disorders with suggestions for further reading on their assessment and management.4
Indeed, research has looked specifically at how to minimize the triggering of eating disorders when addressing weight problems, a concern that has been raised by pediatricians themselves as documented in a qualitative study that also invoked the “do no harm” principle.5 One study asked more than 2,000 teens about how various conversations about weight affected their behavior.6 A main finding from that study was that conversations that focused on healthy eating rather than weight per se were less likely to be associated with unhealthy weight control behaviors. This message was emphasized in a publication that came from the AAP itself; it addresses the interaction between eating disorders and obesity.7 Strangely, however, the suggestion to try to minimize the focus on weight in discussions with patients isn’t well emphasized in the publication.
Overall, though, the AAP guidelines offer a well-informed and balanced approach to helping overweight youth. Pediatricians and other pediatric primary care clinicians are frequently called upon to engage in extremely sensitive and difficult discussions with patients and families on a wide variety of topics and most do so quite skillfully, especially when given the proper time and tools. While it is an area in which many of us, including mental health professionals, could do better, it’s no surprise that the AED’s disparaging of pediatricians’ communication competence came off as insulting. Similarly, productive dialogue would be likely enhanced if both sides avoided unfounded speculation about bias and motive and worked from a good faith perspective that all of us are engaged in this important discussion because of a desire to improve the lives of kids.
From my reading, it is quite a stretch to conclude that this document is urging a hasty and financially driven descent into GLP-1 analogues and bariatric surgery. That said, this wouldn’t be the first time a professional organization issues detailed, thoughtful, and nuanced care guidelines only to have them “condensed” within the practical confines of a busy office practice. Leaders would do well to remember that there remains much work to do to empower clinicians to be able to follow these guidelines as intended.
Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. His latest book is “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”
References
1. Hampl SE et al. Pediatrics. 2023;151(2):e2022060640.
2. Academy of Eating Disorders. Jan. 26, 2023. Accessed February 2, 2023. Available at The Academy for Eating Disorders Releases a Statement on the Recent American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Practice Guideline for Weight-Related Care: First, Do No Harm (newswise.com).
3. Freedhoff Y. MDedge Pediatrics 2023. Available at https://www.mdedge.com/pediatrics/article/260894/obesity/weight-bias-affects-views-kids-obesity-recommendations?channel=52.
4. Hornberger LL, Lane MA et al. Pediatrics. 2021;147(1):e202004027989.
5. Loth KA, Lebow J et al. Global Pediatric Health. 2021;8:1-9.
6. Berge JM et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2013;167(8):746-53.
7. Golden NH et al. Pediatrics. 2016;138(3):e20161649.
While there is little controversy that both obesity and eating disorders represent important public health concerns, each deserving of clinical attention, how best to address one without worsening the other has been the crux of the discussion.
Sparking the dispute was a recent publication from the American Academy of Pediatrics that outlines the scope of the obesity problem and makes specific recommendations for assessment and treatment.1 The ambitious 100-page document, with 801 citations, puts new emphasis on the medical and psychological costs associated with obesity and advocates that pediatric primary care clinicians be more assertive in its treatment. While the guidelines certainly don’t urge the use of medications or surgery options as first-line treatment, the new recommendations do put them on the table as options.
In response, the Academy of Eating Disorders issued a public statement outlining several concerns regarding these guidelines that centered around a lack of a detailed plan to screen and address eating disorders; concerns that pediatricians don’t have the level of training and “skills” to conduct these conversations with patients and families with enough sensitivity; and worries about the premature use of antiobesity medications and surgeries in this population.2
It is fair to say that the critique was sharply worded, invoking physicians’ Hippocratic oath, criticizing their training, and suggesting that the guidelines could be biased by pharmaceutical industry influence (of note, the authors of the guidelines reported no ties to any pharmaceutical company). The AED urged that the guidelines be “revised” after consultation with other groups, including them.
Not unexpectedly, this response, especially coming from a group whose leadership and members are primarily nonphysicians, triggered its own sharp rebukes, including a recent commentary that counter-accused some of the eating disorder clinicians of being more concerned with their pet diets than actual health improvements.3
After everyone takes some deep breaths, it’s worth looking to see if there is some middle ground to explore here. The AAP document, to my reading, shows some important acknowledgments of the stigma associated with being overweight, even coming from pediatricians themselves. One passage reads, “Pediatricians and other PHCPs [primary health care providers] have been – and remain – a source of weight bias. They first need to uncover and address their own attitudes regarding children with obesity. Understanding weight stigma and bias, and learning how to reduce it in the clinical setting, sets the stage for productive discussions and improved relationships between families and pediatricians or other PHCPs.”
The guidelines also include some suggestions for how to talk to youth and families about obesity in less stigmatizing ways and offer a fairly lengthy summary of motivational interviewing techniques as they might apply to obesity discussions and lifestyle change. There is also a section on the interface between obesity and eating disorders with suggestions for further reading on their assessment and management.4
Indeed, research has looked specifically at how to minimize the triggering of eating disorders when addressing weight problems, a concern that has been raised by pediatricians themselves as documented in a qualitative study that also invoked the “do no harm” principle.5 One study asked more than 2,000 teens about how various conversations about weight affected their behavior.6 A main finding from that study was that conversations that focused on healthy eating rather than weight per se were less likely to be associated with unhealthy weight control behaviors. This message was emphasized in a publication that came from the AAP itself; it addresses the interaction between eating disorders and obesity.7 Strangely, however, the suggestion to try to minimize the focus on weight in discussions with patients isn’t well emphasized in the publication.
Overall, though, the AAP guidelines offer a well-informed and balanced approach to helping overweight youth. Pediatricians and other pediatric primary care clinicians are frequently called upon to engage in extremely sensitive and difficult discussions with patients and families on a wide variety of topics and most do so quite skillfully, especially when given the proper time and tools. While it is an area in which many of us, including mental health professionals, could do better, it’s no surprise that the AED’s disparaging of pediatricians’ communication competence came off as insulting. Similarly, productive dialogue would be likely enhanced if both sides avoided unfounded speculation about bias and motive and worked from a good faith perspective that all of us are engaged in this important discussion because of a desire to improve the lives of kids.
From my reading, it is quite a stretch to conclude that this document is urging a hasty and financially driven descent into GLP-1 analogues and bariatric surgery. That said, this wouldn’t be the first time a professional organization issues detailed, thoughtful, and nuanced care guidelines only to have them “condensed” within the practical confines of a busy office practice. Leaders would do well to remember that there remains much work to do to empower clinicians to be able to follow these guidelines as intended.
Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. His latest book is “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”
References
1. Hampl SE et al. Pediatrics. 2023;151(2):e2022060640.
2. Academy of Eating Disorders. Jan. 26, 2023. Accessed February 2, 2023. Available at The Academy for Eating Disorders Releases a Statement on the Recent American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Practice Guideline for Weight-Related Care: First, Do No Harm (newswise.com).
3. Freedhoff Y. MDedge Pediatrics 2023. Available at https://www.mdedge.com/pediatrics/article/260894/obesity/weight-bias-affects-views-kids-obesity-recommendations?channel=52.
4. Hornberger LL, Lane MA et al. Pediatrics. 2021;147(1):e202004027989.
5. Loth KA, Lebow J et al. Global Pediatric Health. 2021;8:1-9.
6. Berge JM et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2013;167(8):746-53.
7. Golden NH et al. Pediatrics. 2016;138(3):e20161649.
A doctor intervenes in a fiery car crash
Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape series telling these stories.
I was coming off a 48-hour shift plus a day of doing outpatient sedation at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing. It was December and Michigan-cold.
I drove on the side of the road where I wasn’t really supposed to and got closer. An SUV had crashed into one of the big concrete structures under the bridge. I saw people running around but wasn’t able to spot EMS or any health care workers. From where I was, I could identify four kids who had already been extricated and one adult still in the driver’s seat. I estimated the kids’ ages were around 7, 5, 3, and an infant who was a few months old. I left my car and went to help.
I was able to peg the ages correctly because I’m a pediatric critical care physician. As a specialty, we’re not commonly known. We oversee patient care in intensive care units, except the patients are children. Part of the job is that we’re experts at triaging. We recognize what’s life-threatening and less so.
The kids were with some adults who kept them warm with blankets. I examined each of them. The infant was asleep but arousable and acting like a normal baby. The 3-year-old boy was vomiting and appeared very fatigued. The 5-year-old boy had a forehead laceration and was in and out of consciousness. The 7-year-old girl was screaming because of different injuries.
While all of the children were concerning to me, I identified one in particular: the 5-year-old boy. It was obvious he needed serious medical attention and fast. So, I kept that little guy in mind. The others had sustained significant injuries, but my best guess was they could get to a hospital and be stabilized.
That said, I’m a trauma instructor, and one of the things I always tell trainees is: Trauma is a black box. On the outside, it may seem like a patient doesn’t have a lot of injuries. But underneath, there might be something worse, like a brain injury. Or the chest might have taken a blunt impact affecting the heart. There may be internal bleeding somewhere in the belly. It’s really hard to tease out what exactly is going on without equipment and testing.
I didn’t even have a pulse oximeter or heart rate monitor. I pretty much just went by the appearance of the child: pulse, heart rate, awareness, things like that.
After the kids, I moved to look at the man in the car. The front end had already caught fire. I could see the driver – the kids’ father, I guessed – unconscious and hunched over. I was wondering, Why hasn’t this guy been extricated?
I approached the car on the front passenger side. And then I just had this feeling. I knew I needed to step back. Immediately.
I did. And a few seconds later, the whole car exploded in flames.
I believe God is in control of everything. I tried to get to that man. But the scene was unsafe. Later I learned that several people, including a young nurse at the scene, had tried to get to him as well.
When EMS came, I identified myself. Obviously, these people do very, very important work. But they may be more used to the 60-year-old heart attack, the 25-year-old gunshot wound, the occasional ill child. I thought that four kids – each with possible critical poly-traumatic injuries – posed a challenge to anyone.
I told them, “This is what I do on a daily basis, and this is the kid I’m worried about the most. The other kids are definitely worrisome, but I would prioritize getting this kid to the hospital first. Can I ride with you?” They agreed.
We got that boy and his older sister into the first ambulance (she was in a lot of pain, the result of a femur fracture). The two other kids rode in the second ambulance. The hospital where I had just left was 10 minutes away. I called the other pediatric critical care doctor there, my partner. He thought I was calling for a routine issue – no such luck. I said, “I’m with four kids who are level-1 traumas in two ambulances and I’m heading to the hospital right now, ETA 10 minutes.”
En route, I thought the little boy might lose consciousness at any moment. He needed a breathing tube, and I debated whether it should be done in the ambulance vs. waiting until we got to the emergency room. Based on my judgment and his vital signs, I elected to wait to have it done it in a more controlled environment. Had I felt like he was in immediate need of an airway, I would’ve attempted it. But those are the tough calls that you must make.
My partner had alerted the trauma and emergency medicine teams at the hospital. By the time we arrived, my partner was down in the ER with the trauma team and ER staff. Everyone was ready. Then it was like divide and conquer. He attended to one of the kids. The ER team and I were with the little guy I was really worried about. We had his breathing tube in within minutes. The trauma team attended to the other two.
All the kids were stabilized and then admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit. I’m happy to say that all of them did well in the end. Even the little guy I was worried about the most.
I must say this incident gave me perspective on what EMS goes through. The field medicine we do in the United States is still in its infancy in a lot of ways. One of the things I would love to see in the future is a mobile ICU. After a critical illness hits, sometimes you only have seconds, minutes, maybe hours if you’re lucky. The earlier you can get patients the treatment they need, the better the outcomes.
I like taking care of critically ill children and their families. It fits my personality. And it’s a wonderful cause. But you have to be ready for tragic cases like this one. Yes, the children came out alive, but the accident claimed a life in a horrible way. And there was nothing I could do about it.
Critical care takes an emotional, psychological, and physical toll. It’s a roller coaster: Some kids do well; some kids don’t do well. All I can do is hold myself accountable. I keep my emotions in check, whether the outcome is positive or negative. And I do my best.
Mohamed Hani Farhat, MD, is a pediatric critical care physician at the University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital in Ann Arbor and Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, Mich. Are you a physician with a dramatic medical story outside the clinic? Medscape would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary of your story to [email protected] . A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape series telling these stories.
I was coming off a 48-hour shift plus a day of doing outpatient sedation at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing. It was December and Michigan-cold.
I drove on the side of the road where I wasn’t really supposed to and got closer. An SUV had crashed into one of the big concrete structures under the bridge. I saw people running around but wasn’t able to spot EMS or any health care workers. From where I was, I could identify four kids who had already been extricated and one adult still in the driver’s seat. I estimated the kids’ ages were around 7, 5, 3, and an infant who was a few months old. I left my car and went to help.
I was able to peg the ages correctly because I’m a pediatric critical care physician. As a specialty, we’re not commonly known. We oversee patient care in intensive care units, except the patients are children. Part of the job is that we’re experts at triaging. We recognize what’s life-threatening and less so.
The kids were with some adults who kept them warm with blankets. I examined each of them. The infant was asleep but arousable and acting like a normal baby. The 3-year-old boy was vomiting and appeared very fatigued. The 5-year-old boy had a forehead laceration and was in and out of consciousness. The 7-year-old girl was screaming because of different injuries.
While all of the children were concerning to me, I identified one in particular: the 5-year-old boy. It was obvious he needed serious medical attention and fast. So, I kept that little guy in mind. The others had sustained significant injuries, but my best guess was they could get to a hospital and be stabilized.
That said, I’m a trauma instructor, and one of the things I always tell trainees is: Trauma is a black box. On the outside, it may seem like a patient doesn’t have a lot of injuries. But underneath, there might be something worse, like a brain injury. Or the chest might have taken a blunt impact affecting the heart. There may be internal bleeding somewhere in the belly. It’s really hard to tease out what exactly is going on without equipment and testing.
I didn’t even have a pulse oximeter or heart rate monitor. I pretty much just went by the appearance of the child: pulse, heart rate, awareness, things like that.
After the kids, I moved to look at the man in the car. The front end had already caught fire. I could see the driver – the kids’ father, I guessed – unconscious and hunched over. I was wondering, Why hasn’t this guy been extricated?
I approached the car on the front passenger side. And then I just had this feeling. I knew I needed to step back. Immediately.
I did. And a few seconds later, the whole car exploded in flames.
I believe God is in control of everything. I tried to get to that man. But the scene was unsafe. Later I learned that several people, including a young nurse at the scene, had tried to get to him as well.
When EMS came, I identified myself. Obviously, these people do very, very important work. But they may be more used to the 60-year-old heart attack, the 25-year-old gunshot wound, the occasional ill child. I thought that four kids – each with possible critical poly-traumatic injuries – posed a challenge to anyone.
I told them, “This is what I do on a daily basis, and this is the kid I’m worried about the most. The other kids are definitely worrisome, but I would prioritize getting this kid to the hospital first. Can I ride with you?” They agreed.
We got that boy and his older sister into the first ambulance (she was in a lot of pain, the result of a femur fracture). The two other kids rode in the second ambulance. The hospital where I had just left was 10 minutes away. I called the other pediatric critical care doctor there, my partner. He thought I was calling for a routine issue – no such luck. I said, “I’m with four kids who are level-1 traumas in two ambulances and I’m heading to the hospital right now, ETA 10 minutes.”
En route, I thought the little boy might lose consciousness at any moment. He needed a breathing tube, and I debated whether it should be done in the ambulance vs. waiting until we got to the emergency room. Based on my judgment and his vital signs, I elected to wait to have it done it in a more controlled environment. Had I felt like he was in immediate need of an airway, I would’ve attempted it. But those are the tough calls that you must make.
My partner had alerted the trauma and emergency medicine teams at the hospital. By the time we arrived, my partner was down in the ER with the trauma team and ER staff. Everyone was ready. Then it was like divide and conquer. He attended to one of the kids. The ER team and I were with the little guy I was really worried about. We had his breathing tube in within minutes. The trauma team attended to the other two.
All the kids were stabilized and then admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit. I’m happy to say that all of them did well in the end. Even the little guy I was worried about the most.
I must say this incident gave me perspective on what EMS goes through. The field medicine we do in the United States is still in its infancy in a lot of ways. One of the things I would love to see in the future is a mobile ICU. After a critical illness hits, sometimes you only have seconds, minutes, maybe hours if you’re lucky. The earlier you can get patients the treatment they need, the better the outcomes.
I like taking care of critically ill children and their families. It fits my personality. And it’s a wonderful cause. But you have to be ready for tragic cases like this one. Yes, the children came out alive, but the accident claimed a life in a horrible way. And there was nothing I could do about it.
Critical care takes an emotional, psychological, and physical toll. It’s a roller coaster: Some kids do well; some kids don’t do well. All I can do is hold myself accountable. I keep my emotions in check, whether the outcome is positive or negative. And I do my best.
Mohamed Hani Farhat, MD, is a pediatric critical care physician at the University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital in Ann Arbor and Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, Mich. Are you a physician with a dramatic medical story outside the clinic? Medscape would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary of your story to [email protected] . A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape series telling these stories.
I was coming off a 48-hour shift plus a day of doing outpatient sedation at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing. It was December and Michigan-cold.
I drove on the side of the road where I wasn’t really supposed to and got closer. An SUV had crashed into one of the big concrete structures under the bridge. I saw people running around but wasn’t able to spot EMS or any health care workers. From where I was, I could identify four kids who had already been extricated and one adult still in the driver’s seat. I estimated the kids’ ages were around 7, 5, 3, and an infant who was a few months old. I left my car and went to help.
I was able to peg the ages correctly because I’m a pediatric critical care physician. As a specialty, we’re not commonly known. We oversee patient care in intensive care units, except the patients are children. Part of the job is that we’re experts at triaging. We recognize what’s life-threatening and less so.
The kids were with some adults who kept them warm with blankets. I examined each of them. The infant was asleep but arousable and acting like a normal baby. The 3-year-old boy was vomiting and appeared very fatigued. The 5-year-old boy had a forehead laceration and was in and out of consciousness. The 7-year-old girl was screaming because of different injuries.
While all of the children were concerning to me, I identified one in particular: the 5-year-old boy. It was obvious he needed serious medical attention and fast. So, I kept that little guy in mind. The others had sustained significant injuries, but my best guess was they could get to a hospital and be stabilized.
That said, I’m a trauma instructor, and one of the things I always tell trainees is: Trauma is a black box. On the outside, it may seem like a patient doesn’t have a lot of injuries. But underneath, there might be something worse, like a brain injury. Or the chest might have taken a blunt impact affecting the heart. There may be internal bleeding somewhere in the belly. It’s really hard to tease out what exactly is going on without equipment and testing.
I didn’t even have a pulse oximeter or heart rate monitor. I pretty much just went by the appearance of the child: pulse, heart rate, awareness, things like that.
After the kids, I moved to look at the man in the car. The front end had already caught fire. I could see the driver – the kids’ father, I guessed – unconscious and hunched over. I was wondering, Why hasn’t this guy been extricated?
I approached the car on the front passenger side. And then I just had this feeling. I knew I needed to step back. Immediately.
I did. And a few seconds later, the whole car exploded in flames.
I believe God is in control of everything. I tried to get to that man. But the scene was unsafe. Later I learned that several people, including a young nurse at the scene, had tried to get to him as well.
When EMS came, I identified myself. Obviously, these people do very, very important work. But they may be more used to the 60-year-old heart attack, the 25-year-old gunshot wound, the occasional ill child. I thought that four kids – each with possible critical poly-traumatic injuries – posed a challenge to anyone.
I told them, “This is what I do on a daily basis, and this is the kid I’m worried about the most. The other kids are definitely worrisome, but I would prioritize getting this kid to the hospital first. Can I ride with you?” They agreed.
We got that boy and his older sister into the first ambulance (she was in a lot of pain, the result of a femur fracture). The two other kids rode in the second ambulance. The hospital where I had just left was 10 minutes away. I called the other pediatric critical care doctor there, my partner. He thought I was calling for a routine issue – no such luck. I said, “I’m with four kids who are level-1 traumas in two ambulances and I’m heading to the hospital right now, ETA 10 minutes.”
En route, I thought the little boy might lose consciousness at any moment. He needed a breathing tube, and I debated whether it should be done in the ambulance vs. waiting until we got to the emergency room. Based on my judgment and his vital signs, I elected to wait to have it done it in a more controlled environment. Had I felt like he was in immediate need of an airway, I would’ve attempted it. But those are the tough calls that you must make.
My partner had alerted the trauma and emergency medicine teams at the hospital. By the time we arrived, my partner was down in the ER with the trauma team and ER staff. Everyone was ready. Then it was like divide and conquer. He attended to one of the kids. The ER team and I were with the little guy I was really worried about. We had his breathing tube in within minutes. The trauma team attended to the other two.
All the kids were stabilized and then admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit. I’m happy to say that all of them did well in the end. Even the little guy I was worried about the most.
I must say this incident gave me perspective on what EMS goes through. The field medicine we do in the United States is still in its infancy in a lot of ways. One of the things I would love to see in the future is a mobile ICU. After a critical illness hits, sometimes you only have seconds, minutes, maybe hours if you’re lucky. The earlier you can get patients the treatment they need, the better the outcomes.
I like taking care of critically ill children and their families. It fits my personality. And it’s a wonderful cause. But you have to be ready for tragic cases like this one. Yes, the children came out alive, but the accident claimed a life in a horrible way. And there was nothing I could do about it.
Critical care takes an emotional, psychological, and physical toll. It’s a roller coaster: Some kids do well; some kids don’t do well. All I can do is hold myself accountable. I keep my emotions in check, whether the outcome is positive or negative. And I do my best.
Mohamed Hani Farhat, MD, is a pediatric critical care physician at the University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital in Ann Arbor and Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, Mich. Are you a physician with a dramatic medical story outside the clinic? Medscape would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary of your story to [email protected] . A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Young children quickly outgrow the need for ear tubes
About half a million children between the ages of 1 and 3 years old have ear tube surgery in the United States every year at an annual cost exceeding $2 billion. It is the most common childhood surgery performed with anesthesia. It is a surgery commonly performed on children in most other high- and middle-income countries.
My group recently published a paper on the timing and necessity of tympanostomy tubes for recurrent otitis media in young children. The primary objective was to quantitatively examine recurrent acute otitis media (AOM) incidence with respect to age of occurrence, the influence of daycare attendance, and other risk factors in individual children. We introduced the concept of a “window of susceptibility” to AOM as new terminology referring to a child who has two or more closely spaced AOM occurrences during a window of time. We sought to know what to expect and how to advise the parent when a child presents with closely spaced AOMs.
A secondary objective was to develop models to predict the risk and timing of AOM recurrences based on the natural history of disease in young children who do not get tympanostomy tubes. Prediction models were developed to assist clinicians in understanding and explaining to parents the benefit of tympanostomy tubes based on the child’s age and number of AOMs.
The children were all from a primary care pediatric practice in Rochester, N.Y., which comprised a typical mixed demographic of largely middle-class, health care–insured families that was broadly representative of the racial/ethnic diversity in the community. The sample included both wealthy families and those living below the poverty line. The diagnosis of AOM was made based on the American Academy of Pediatrics guidance in which a presumed middle ear effusion and a full or bulging tympanic membrane were required. Almost all episodes (> 85%) of clinically diagnosed AOM cases were confirmed by culture of middle ear fluid collected by tympanocentesis to ensure diagnostic accuracy.
286 children who had ear infections were studied. We found that 80% of ear infections occurred during a very narrow window of susceptibility – age 6-21 months. About 72% of children had a window of susceptibility to ear infections that lasted 5 months or less; 97% of children had a window of susceptibility that lasted 10 months or less.
From this result, we observed that about 90% of children have a window of time lasting about 10 months when they get repeated ear infections. By the time a child gets three ear infections in 6 months (a period of time recommended by the AAP and American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery when ear tubes might be considered) and then a referral for ear tubes is made and the child gets an appointment with the ear, nose, and throat doctor, and surgery is scheduled, the ear infections were going to stop anyway.
In other words, millions of children worldwide have been getting ear tubes and physicians and parents saw that the ear infections stopped. So they concluded the ear tubes stopped the infections. We found the infections were going to stop anyway even if the child did not receive ear tubes because their susceptibility to ear infections is over by the time the surgery is performed. The child outgrew ear infections.
An exception was children in daycare at an early age. Our study found that children in daycare who are around 6 months old and start getting ear infections at that age are likely destined to have three or more ear infections in the first year of life. If children are going to be in daycare, perhaps those who need them should receive ear tubes early. Analysis of other demographic and risk factor covariates – sex, race/ethnicity, breastfeeding, siblings in the home, smoking in the home, atopy, and family history of otitis media – were not significantly associated with the number of AOMs in the child population we studied.
We developed a prediction model for doctors, so they could input a child’s age, number of ear infections, and daycare attendance and receive back an estimate of the number of likely future ear infections for that child. With that knowledge, physicians and parents can make more informed decisions.
Our message to clinicians and parents is to reconsider the necessity and timing of ear tube surgery for children with recurrent ear infections because the future is not predicted by the past. Children having several ear infections in a short time does not predict that they will have a similar number of ear infections in the future.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health awarded to Rochester Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero was principal investigator for the award.
Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.
About half a million children between the ages of 1 and 3 years old have ear tube surgery in the United States every year at an annual cost exceeding $2 billion. It is the most common childhood surgery performed with anesthesia. It is a surgery commonly performed on children in most other high- and middle-income countries.
My group recently published a paper on the timing and necessity of tympanostomy tubes for recurrent otitis media in young children. The primary objective was to quantitatively examine recurrent acute otitis media (AOM) incidence with respect to age of occurrence, the influence of daycare attendance, and other risk factors in individual children. We introduced the concept of a “window of susceptibility” to AOM as new terminology referring to a child who has two or more closely spaced AOM occurrences during a window of time. We sought to know what to expect and how to advise the parent when a child presents with closely spaced AOMs.
A secondary objective was to develop models to predict the risk and timing of AOM recurrences based on the natural history of disease in young children who do not get tympanostomy tubes. Prediction models were developed to assist clinicians in understanding and explaining to parents the benefit of tympanostomy tubes based on the child’s age and number of AOMs.
The children were all from a primary care pediatric practice in Rochester, N.Y., which comprised a typical mixed demographic of largely middle-class, health care–insured families that was broadly representative of the racial/ethnic diversity in the community. The sample included both wealthy families and those living below the poverty line. The diagnosis of AOM was made based on the American Academy of Pediatrics guidance in which a presumed middle ear effusion and a full or bulging tympanic membrane were required. Almost all episodes (> 85%) of clinically diagnosed AOM cases were confirmed by culture of middle ear fluid collected by tympanocentesis to ensure diagnostic accuracy.
286 children who had ear infections were studied. We found that 80% of ear infections occurred during a very narrow window of susceptibility – age 6-21 months. About 72% of children had a window of susceptibility to ear infections that lasted 5 months or less; 97% of children had a window of susceptibility that lasted 10 months or less.
From this result, we observed that about 90% of children have a window of time lasting about 10 months when they get repeated ear infections. By the time a child gets three ear infections in 6 months (a period of time recommended by the AAP and American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery when ear tubes might be considered) and then a referral for ear tubes is made and the child gets an appointment with the ear, nose, and throat doctor, and surgery is scheduled, the ear infections were going to stop anyway.
In other words, millions of children worldwide have been getting ear tubes and physicians and parents saw that the ear infections stopped. So they concluded the ear tubes stopped the infections. We found the infections were going to stop anyway even if the child did not receive ear tubes because their susceptibility to ear infections is over by the time the surgery is performed. The child outgrew ear infections.
An exception was children in daycare at an early age. Our study found that children in daycare who are around 6 months old and start getting ear infections at that age are likely destined to have three or more ear infections in the first year of life. If children are going to be in daycare, perhaps those who need them should receive ear tubes early. Analysis of other demographic and risk factor covariates – sex, race/ethnicity, breastfeeding, siblings in the home, smoking in the home, atopy, and family history of otitis media – were not significantly associated with the number of AOMs in the child population we studied.
We developed a prediction model for doctors, so they could input a child’s age, number of ear infections, and daycare attendance and receive back an estimate of the number of likely future ear infections for that child. With that knowledge, physicians and parents can make more informed decisions.
Our message to clinicians and parents is to reconsider the necessity and timing of ear tube surgery for children with recurrent ear infections because the future is not predicted by the past. Children having several ear infections in a short time does not predict that they will have a similar number of ear infections in the future.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health awarded to Rochester Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero was principal investigator for the award.
Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.
About half a million children between the ages of 1 and 3 years old have ear tube surgery in the United States every year at an annual cost exceeding $2 billion. It is the most common childhood surgery performed with anesthesia. It is a surgery commonly performed on children in most other high- and middle-income countries.
My group recently published a paper on the timing and necessity of tympanostomy tubes for recurrent otitis media in young children. The primary objective was to quantitatively examine recurrent acute otitis media (AOM) incidence with respect to age of occurrence, the influence of daycare attendance, and other risk factors in individual children. We introduced the concept of a “window of susceptibility” to AOM as new terminology referring to a child who has two or more closely spaced AOM occurrences during a window of time. We sought to know what to expect and how to advise the parent when a child presents with closely spaced AOMs.
A secondary objective was to develop models to predict the risk and timing of AOM recurrences based on the natural history of disease in young children who do not get tympanostomy tubes. Prediction models were developed to assist clinicians in understanding and explaining to parents the benefit of tympanostomy tubes based on the child’s age and number of AOMs.
The children were all from a primary care pediatric practice in Rochester, N.Y., which comprised a typical mixed demographic of largely middle-class, health care–insured families that was broadly representative of the racial/ethnic diversity in the community. The sample included both wealthy families and those living below the poverty line. The diagnosis of AOM was made based on the American Academy of Pediatrics guidance in which a presumed middle ear effusion and a full or bulging tympanic membrane were required. Almost all episodes (> 85%) of clinically diagnosed AOM cases were confirmed by culture of middle ear fluid collected by tympanocentesis to ensure diagnostic accuracy.
286 children who had ear infections were studied. We found that 80% of ear infections occurred during a very narrow window of susceptibility – age 6-21 months. About 72% of children had a window of susceptibility to ear infections that lasted 5 months or less; 97% of children had a window of susceptibility that lasted 10 months or less.
From this result, we observed that about 90% of children have a window of time lasting about 10 months when they get repeated ear infections. By the time a child gets three ear infections in 6 months (a period of time recommended by the AAP and American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery when ear tubes might be considered) and then a referral for ear tubes is made and the child gets an appointment with the ear, nose, and throat doctor, and surgery is scheduled, the ear infections were going to stop anyway.
In other words, millions of children worldwide have been getting ear tubes and physicians and parents saw that the ear infections stopped. So they concluded the ear tubes stopped the infections. We found the infections were going to stop anyway even if the child did not receive ear tubes because their susceptibility to ear infections is over by the time the surgery is performed. The child outgrew ear infections.
An exception was children in daycare at an early age. Our study found that children in daycare who are around 6 months old and start getting ear infections at that age are likely destined to have three or more ear infections in the first year of life. If children are going to be in daycare, perhaps those who need them should receive ear tubes early. Analysis of other demographic and risk factor covariates – sex, race/ethnicity, breastfeeding, siblings in the home, smoking in the home, atopy, and family history of otitis media – were not significantly associated with the number of AOMs in the child population we studied.
We developed a prediction model for doctors, so they could input a child’s age, number of ear infections, and daycare attendance and receive back an estimate of the number of likely future ear infections for that child. With that knowledge, physicians and parents can make more informed decisions.
Our message to clinicians and parents is to reconsider the necessity and timing of ear tube surgery for children with recurrent ear infections because the future is not predicted by the past. Children having several ear infections in a short time does not predict that they will have a similar number of ear infections in the future.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health awarded to Rochester Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero was principal investigator for the award.
Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.
Nature, not nurture, the culprit in OCD
new research suggests.
This finding from a large, register-based study is particularly surprising because results from previous studies of major depression and anxiety disorder have shown a significant effect of parenting and a child’s home environment on the risk for these disorders, the investigators noted.
While the results likely won’t change patient treatment, one expert said it could alleviate concerns of some parents with OCD who fear that witnessing their obsessive behaviors might put their children at higher risk for the disorder.
“The evidence is consistent with the idea that the psychological transmission of OCD from parent to child, if it exists, is really pretty weak,” lead author Kenneth S. Kendler, MD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
Family analysis
The study is the first to include adoptive parents in an analysis of OCD transmission, which allowed investigators to answer the nature versus nurture question that is often difficult to decipher.
Working with Swedish population registries, researchers identified more than 2.4 million offspring. Of these, 27,141 individuals (1.1%) had a lifetime diagnosis of OCD.
Families were divided into four types: intact families, with kids who lived at home with their biological parents from birth to at least age 15 years; families with kids who never lived with their biological father; families with children who did not live with their biological fathers between birth and age 15 years but who lived with a stepfather for at least 10 of those years; and families with children who were adopted before the age of 5 by people with no biological connection to the child.
After analyzing data from all parent-child relationships, researchers found that genes plus rearing (odds ratio, 3.94; 95% confidence interval, 3.58-4.33) and genes only (OR, 3.34; 95% CI, 2.27-4.93) were significantly more likely to be correlated to transmission of OCD from parent to offspring than rearing alone. Rearing only (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.45-4.39) was not significantly correlated with OCD transmission
“It appears from our data that the only substantial transmission that occurs is in the genes parents transmit, not by the modeling of behavior,” Dr. Kendler said.
“There’s an idea that you can learn some things from your parents from psychopathology, but we didn’t see that kids picked that up much in the case of OCD,” he added.
However, there was one outlier: Children raised by stepparents or adoptive parents with an anxiety disorder had a greater risk of developing OCD.
Given the lack of evidence of a strong rearing effect in other analyses, Dr. Kendler noted that this rogue finding could be caused by an underpowered sample; the researchers plan to study the data further.
“Psychiatric disorders, like many other conditions, are often correlated with neighboring conditions,” he said. “Our study would suggest that some of the molecular genetic variants between OCD and generalized anxiety disorder or other anxiety disorders would be shared, but some would be unique.”
Answers an old question
In a comment, Jon Grant, JD, MD, MPH, professor of psychiatry and director of the Addictive, Compulsive, and Impulsive Disorders Research Lab at the University of Chicago, said the findings fill an important gap in what is known about OCD.
“I think the findings are really answering this old question of: ‘Is OCD due to the rearing patterns in a family versus genetics?’ This was able to get at that information showing that it’s virtually all due to genetics within families, and that’s really good to know,” said Dr. Grant, who was not a part of the study.
He was also struck by the finding of a strong genetic relationship between OCD and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).
While identifying that OCD and GAD are genetically linked likely won’t change clinical care, “I think it at least allows clinicians to know when we see that comorbidity that it may be much more genetically linked in the case of GAD,” Dr. Grant said.
The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, as well as Avtal om Läkarutbildning och Forskning funding from Region Skåne. Dr. Kendler and Dr. Grant reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests.
This finding from a large, register-based study is particularly surprising because results from previous studies of major depression and anxiety disorder have shown a significant effect of parenting and a child’s home environment on the risk for these disorders, the investigators noted.
While the results likely won’t change patient treatment, one expert said it could alleviate concerns of some parents with OCD who fear that witnessing their obsessive behaviors might put their children at higher risk for the disorder.
“The evidence is consistent with the idea that the psychological transmission of OCD from parent to child, if it exists, is really pretty weak,” lead author Kenneth S. Kendler, MD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
Family analysis
The study is the first to include adoptive parents in an analysis of OCD transmission, which allowed investigators to answer the nature versus nurture question that is often difficult to decipher.
Working with Swedish population registries, researchers identified more than 2.4 million offspring. Of these, 27,141 individuals (1.1%) had a lifetime diagnosis of OCD.
Families were divided into four types: intact families, with kids who lived at home with their biological parents from birth to at least age 15 years; families with kids who never lived with their biological father; families with children who did not live with their biological fathers between birth and age 15 years but who lived with a stepfather for at least 10 of those years; and families with children who were adopted before the age of 5 by people with no biological connection to the child.
After analyzing data from all parent-child relationships, researchers found that genes plus rearing (odds ratio, 3.94; 95% confidence interval, 3.58-4.33) and genes only (OR, 3.34; 95% CI, 2.27-4.93) were significantly more likely to be correlated to transmission of OCD from parent to offspring than rearing alone. Rearing only (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.45-4.39) was not significantly correlated with OCD transmission
“It appears from our data that the only substantial transmission that occurs is in the genes parents transmit, not by the modeling of behavior,” Dr. Kendler said.
“There’s an idea that you can learn some things from your parents from psychopathology, but we didn’t see that kids picked that up much in the case of OCD,” he added.
However, there was one outlier: Children raised by stepparents or adoptive parents with an anxiety disorder had a greater risk of developing OCD.
Given the lack of evidence of a strong rearing effect in other analyses, Dr. Kendler noted that this rogue finding could be caused by an underpowered sample; the researchers plan to study the data further.
“Psychiatric disorders, like many other conditions, are often correlated with neighboring conditions,” he said. “Our study would suggest that some of the molecular genetic variants between OCD and generalized anxiety disorder or other anxiety disorders would be shared, but some would be unique.”
Answers an old question
In a comment, Jon Grant, JD, MD, MPH, professor of psychiatry and director of the Addictive, Compulsive, and Impulsive Disorders Research Lab at the University of Chicago, said the findings fill an important gap in what is known about OCD.
“I think the findings are really answering this old question of: ‘Is OCD due to the rearing patterns in a family versus genetics?’ This was able to get at that information showing that it’s virtually all due to genetics within families, and that’s really good to know,” said Dr. Grant, who was not a part of the study.
He was also struck by the finding of a strong genetic relationship between OCD and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).
While identifying that OCD and GAD are genetically linked likely won’t change clinical care, “I think it at least allows clinicians to know when we see that comorbidity that it may be much more genetically linked in the case of GAD,” Dr. Grant said.
The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, as well as Avtal om Läkarutbildning och Forskning funding from Region Skåne. Dr. Kendler and Dr. Grant reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests.
This finding from a large, register-based study is particularly surprising because results from previous studies of major depression and anxiety disorder have shown a significant effect of parenting and a child’s home environment on the risk for these disorders, the investigators noted.
While the results likely won’t change patient treatment, one expert said it could alleviate concerns of some parents with OCD who fear that witnessing their obsessive behaviors might put their children at higher risk for the disorder.
“The evidence is consistent with the idea that the psychological transmission of OCD from parent to child, if it exists, is really pretty weak,” lead author Kenneth S. Kendler, MD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
Family analysis
The study is the first to include adoptive parents in an analysis of OCD transmission, which allowed investigators to answer the nature versus nurture question that is often difficult to decipher.
Working with Swedish population registries, researchers identified more than 2.4 million offspring. Of these, 27,141 individuals (1.1%) had a lifetime diagnosis of OCD.
Families were divided into four types: intact families, with kids who lived at home with their biological parents from birth to at least age 15 years; families with kids who never lived with their biological father; families with children who did not live with their biological fathers between birth and age 15 years but who lived with a stepfather for at least 10 of those years; and families with children who were adopted before the age of 5 by people with no biological connection to the child.
After analyzing data from all parent-child relationships, researchers found that genes plus rearing (odds ratio, 3.94; 95% confidence interval, 3.58-4.33) and genes only (OR, 3.34; 95% CI, 2.27-4.93) were significantly more likely to be correlated to transmission of OCD from parent to offspring than rearing alone. Rearing only (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.45-4.39) was not significantly correlated with OCD transmission
“It appears from our data that the only substantial transmission that occurs is in the genes parents transmit, not by the modeling of behavior,” Dr. Kendler said.
“There’s an idea that you can learn some things from your parents from psychopathology, but we didn’t see that kids picked that up much in the case of OCD,” he added.
However, there was one outlier: Children raised by stepparents or adoptive parents with an anxiety disorder had a greater risk of developing OCD.
Given the lack of evidence of a strong rearing effect in other analyses, Dr. Kendler noted that this rogue finding could be caused by an underpowered sample; the researchers plan to study the data further.
“Psychiatric disorders, like many other conditions, are often correlated with neighboring conditions,” he said. “Our study would suggest that some of the molecular genetic variants between OCD and generalized anxiety disorder or other anxiety disorders would be shared, but some would be unique.”
Answers an old question
In a comment, Jon Grant, JD, MD, MPH, professor of psychiatry and director of the Addictive, Compulsive, and Impulsive Disorders Research Lab at the University of Chicago, said the findings fill an important gap in what is known about OCD.
“I think the findings are really answering this old question of: ‘Is OCD due to the rearing patterns in a family versus genetics?’ This was able to get at that information showing that it’s virtually all due to genetics within families, and that’s really good to know,” said Dr. Grant, who was not a part of the study.
He was also struck by the finding of a strong genetic relationship between OCD and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).
While identifying that OCD and GAD are genetically linked likely won’t change clinical care, “I think it at least allows clinicians to know when we see that comorbidity that it may be much more genetically linked in the case of GAD,” Dr. Grant said.
The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, as well as Avtal om Läkarutbildning och Forskning funding from Region Skåne. Dr. Kendler and Dr. Grant reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA PSYCHIATRY
Three wild technologies about to change health care
When I was a child, I watched syndicated episodes of the original “Star Trek.” I was dazzled by the space travel, sure, but also the medical technology.
A handheld “tricorder” detected diseases, while an intramuscular injector (“hypospray”) could treat them. Sickbay “biobeds” came with real-time health monitors that looked futuristic at the time but seem primitive today.
Such visions inspired a lot of us kids to pursue science. Little did we know the real-life advances many of us would see in our lifetimes.
Artificial intelligence helping to spot disease, robots performing surgery, even video calls between doctor and patient – all these once sounded fantastical but now happen in clinical care.
Now, in the 23rd year of the 21st century, you might not believe wht we’ll be capable of next. Three especially wild examples are moving closer to clinical reality.
Human hibernation
Captain America, Han Solo, and “Star Trek” villain Khan – all were preserved at low temperatures and then revived, waking up alive and well months, decades, or centuries later. These are fictional examples, to be sure, but the science they’re rooted in is real.
(In one extreme case, a climber survived after almost 9 hours of efforts to revive him.)
Useful for a space traveler? Maybe not. But it’s potentially huge for someone with life-threatening injuries from a car accident or a gunshot wound.
That’s the thinking behind a breakthrough procedure that came after decades of research on pigs and dogs, now in a clinical trial. The idea: A person with massive blood loss whose heart has stopped is injected with an ice-cold fluid, cooling them from the inside, down to about 50° F.
Doctors already induce more modest hypothermia to protect the brain and other organs after cardiac arrest and during surgery on the aortic arch (the main artery carrying blood from the heart).
But this experimental procedure – called emergency preservation and resuscitation (EPR) – goes far beyond that, dramatically “decreasing the body’s need for oxygen and blood flow,” says Samuel Tisherman, MD, a trauma surgeon at the University of Maryland Medical Center and the trial’s lead researcher. This puts the patient in a state of suspended animation that “could buy time for surgeons to stop the bleeding and save more of these patients.”
The technique has been done on at least six patients, though none were reported to survive. The trial is expected to include 20 people by the time it wraps up in December, according to the listing on the U.S. clinical trials database. Though given the strict requirements for candidates (emergency trauma victims who are not likely to survive), one can’t exactly rely on a set schedule.
Still, the technology is promising. Someday we may even use it to keep patients in suspended animation for months or years, experts predict, helping astronauts through decades-long spaceflights, or stalling death in sick patients awaiting a cure.
Artificial womb
Another sci-fi classic: growing human babies outside the womb. Think the fetus fields from “The Matrix,” or the frozen embryos in “Alien: Covenant.”
In 1923, British biologist J.B.S. Haldane coined a term for that – ectogenesis. He predicted that 70% of pregnancies would take place, from fertilization to birth, in artificial wombs by 2074. That many seems unlikely, but the timeline is on track.
Developing an embryo outside the womb is already routine in in vitro fertilization. And technology enables preterm babies to survive through much of the second half of gestation. Normal human pregnancy is 40 weeks, and the youngest preterm baby ever to survive was 21 weeks and 1 day old, just a few days younger than a smattering of others who lived.
The biggest obstacle for babies younger than that is lung viability. Mechanical ventilation can damage the lungs and lead to a chronic (sometimes fatal) lung disease known as bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Avoiding this would mean figuring out a way to maintain fetal circulation – the intricate system that delivers oxygenated blood from the placenta to the fetus via the umbilical cord. Researchers at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia have done this using a fetal lamb.
The key to their invention is a substitute placenta: an oxygenator connected to the lamb’s umbilical cord. Tubes inserted through the umbilical vein and arteries carry oxygenated blood from the “placenta” to the fetus, and deoxygenated blood back out. The lamb resides in an artificial, fluid-filled amniotic sac until its lungs and other organs are developed.
Fertility treatment could benefit, too. “An artificial womb may substitute in situations in which a gestational carrier – surrogate – is indicated,” says Paula Amato, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. (Dr. Amato is not involved in the CHOP research.) For example: when the mother is missing a uterus or can’t carry a pregnancy safely.
No date is set for clinical trials yet. But according to the research, the main difference between human and lamb may come down to size. A lamb’s umbilical vessels are larger, so feeding in a tube is easier. With today’s advances in miniaturizing surgical methods, that seems like a challenge scientists can overcome.
Messenger RNA therapeutics
Back to “Star Trek.” The hypospray injector’s contents could cure just about any disease, even one newly discovered on a strange planet. That’s not unlike messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, a breakthrough that enabled scientists to quickly develop some of the first COVID-19 vaccines.
But vaccines are just the beginning of what this technology can do.
A whole field of immunotherapy is emerging that uses mRNA to deliver instructions to produce chimeric antigen receptor–modified immune cells (CAR-modified immune cells). These cells are engineered to target diseased cells and tissues, like cancer cells and harmful fibroblasts (scar tissue) that promote fibrosis in, for example, the heart and lungs.
The field is bursting with rodent research, and clinical trials have started for treating some advanced-stage malignancies.
Actual clinical use may be years away, but if all goes well, these medicines could help treat or even cure the core medical problems facing humanity. We’re talking cancer, heart disease, neurodegenerative disease – transforming one therapy into another by simply changing the mRNA’s “nucleotide sequence,” the blueprint containing instructions telling it what to do, and what disease to attack.
As this technology matures, we may start to feel as if we’re really on “Star Trek,” where Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy pulls out the same device to treat just about every disease or injury.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
When I was a child, I watched syndicated episodes of the original “Star Trek.” I was dazzled by the space travel, sure, but also the medical technology.
A handheld “tricorder” detected diseases, while an intramuscular injector (“hypospray”) could treat them. Sickbay “biobeds” came with real-time health monitors that looked futuristic at the time but seem primitive today.
Such visions inspired a lot of us kids to pursue science. Little did we know the real-life advances many of us would see in our lifetimes.
Artificial intelligence helping to spot disease, robots performing surgery, even video calls between doctor and patient – all these once sounded fantastical but now happen in clinical care.
Now, in the 23rd year of the 21st century, you might not believe wht we’ll be capable of next. Three especially wild examples are moving closer to clinical reality.
Human hibernation
Captain America, Han Solo, and “Star Trek” villain Khan – all were preserved at low temperatures and then revived, waking up alive and well months, decades, or centuries later. These are fictional examples, to be sure, but the science they’re rooted in is real.
(In one extreme case, a climber survived after almost 9 hours of efforts to revive him.)
Useful for a space traveler? Maybe not. But it’s potentially huge for someone with life-threatening injuries from a car accident or a gunshot wound.
That’s the thinking behind a breakthrough procedure that came after decades of research on pigs and dogs, now in a clinical trial. The idea: A person with massive blood loss whose heart has stopped is injected with an ice-cold fluid, cooling them from the inside, down to about 50° F.
Doctors already induce more modest hypothermia to protect the brain and other organs after cardiac arrest and during surgery on the aortic arch (the main artery carrying blood from the heart).
But this experimental procedure – called emergency preservation and resuscitation (EPR) – goes far beyond that, dramatically “decreasing the body’s need for oxygen and blood flow,” says Samuel Tisherman, MD, a trauma surgeon at the University of Maryland Medical Center and the trial’s lead researcher. This puts the patient in a state of suspended animation that “could buy time for surgeons to stop the bleeding and save more of these patients.”
The technique has been done on at least six patients, though none were reported to survive. The trial is expected to include 20 people by the time it wraps up in December, according to the listing on the U.S. clinical trials database. Though given the strict requirements for candidates (emergency trauma victims who are not likely to survive), one can’t exactly rely on a set schedule.
Still, the technology is promising. Someday we may even use it to keep patients in suspended animation for months or years, experts predict, helping astronauts through decades-long spaceflights, or stalling death in sick patients awaiting a cure.
Artificial womb
Another sci-fi classic: growing human babies outside the womb. Think the fetus fields from “The Matrix,” or the frozen embryos in “Alien: Covenant.”
In 1923, British biologist J.B.S. Haldane coined a term for that – ectogenesis. He predicted that 70% of pregnancies would take place, from fertilization to birth, in artificial wombs by 2074. That many seems unlikely, but the timeline is on track.
Developing an embryo outside the womb is already routine in in vitro fertilization. And technology enables preterm babies to survive through much of the second half of gestation. Normal human pregnancy is 40 weeks, and the youngest preterm baby ever to survive was 21 weeks and 1 day old, just a few days younger than a smattering of others who lived.
The biggest obstacle for babies younger than that is lung viability. Mechanical ventilation can damage the lungs and lead to a chronic (sometimes fatal) lung disease known as bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Avoiding this would mean figuring out a way to maintain fetal circulation – the intricate system that delivers oxygenated blood from the placenta to the fetus via the umbilical cord. Researchers at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia have done this using a fetal lamb.
The key to their invention is a substitute placenta: an oxygenator connected to the lamb’s umbilical cord. Tubes inserted through the umbilical vein and arteries carry oxygenated blood from the “placenta” to the fetus, and deoxygenated blood back out. The lamb resides in an artificial, fluid-filled amniotic sac until its lungs and other organs are developed.
Fertility treatment could benefit, too. “An artificial womb may substitute in situations in which a gestational carrier – surrogate – is indicated,” says Paula Amato, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. (Dr. Amato is not involved in the CHOP research.) For example: when the mother is missing a uterus or can’t carry a pregnancy safely.
No date is set for clinical trials yet. But according to the research, the main difference between human and lamb may come down to size. A lamb’s umbilical vessels are larger, so feeding in a tube is easier. With today’s advances in miniaturizing surgical methods, that seems like a challenge scientists can overcome.
Messenger RNA therapeutics
Back to “Star Trek.” The hypospray injector’s contents could cure just about any disease, even one newly discovered on a strange planet. That’s not unlike messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, a breakthrough that enabled scientists to quickly develop some of the first COVID-19 vaccines.
But vaccines are just the beginning of what this technology can do.
A whole field of immunotherapy is emerging that uses mRNA to deliver instructions to produce chimeric antigen receptor–modified immune cells (CAR-modified immune cells). These cells are engineered to target diseased cells and tissues, like cancer cells and harmful fibroblasts (scar tissue) that promote fibrosis in, for example, the heart and lungs.
The field is bursting with rodent research, and clinical trials have started for treating some advanced-stage malignancies.
Actual clinical use may be years away, but if all goes well, these medicines could help treat or even cure the core medical problems facing humanity. We’re talking cancer, heart disease, neurodegenerative disease – transforming one therapy into another by simply changing the mRNA’s “nucleotide sequence,” the blueprint containing instructions telling it what to do, and what disease to attack.
As this technology matures, we may start to feel as if we’re really on “Star Trek,” where Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy pulls out the same device to treat just about every disease or injury.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
When I was a child, I watched syndicated episodes of the original “Star Trek.” I was dazzled by the space travel, sure, but also the medical technology.
A handheld “tricorder” detected diseases, while an intramuscular injector (“hypospray”) could treat them. Sickbay “biobeds” came with real-time health monitors that looked futuristic at the time but seem primitive today.
Such visions inspired a lot of us kids to pursue science. Little did we know the real-life advances many of us would see in our lifetimes.
Artificial intelligence helping to spot disease, robots performing surgery, even video calls between doctor and patient – all these once sounded fantastical but now happen in clinical care.
Now, in the 23rd year of the 21st century, you might not believe wht we’ll be capable of next. Three especially wild examples are moving closer to clinical reality.
Human hibernation
Captain America, Han Solo, and “Star Trek” villain Khan – all were preserved at low temperatures and then revived, waking up alive and well months, decades, or centuries later. These are fictional examples, to be sure, but the science they’re rooted in is real.
(In one extreme case, a climber survived after almost 9 hours of efforts to revive him.)
Useful for a space traveler? Maybe not. But it’s potentially huge for someone with life-threatening injuries from a car accident or a gunshot wound.
That’s the thinking behind a breakthrough procedure that came after decades of research on pigs and dogs, now in a clinical trial. The idea: A person with massive blood loss whose heart has stopped is injected with an ice-cold fluid, cooling them from the inside, down to about 50° F.
Doctors already induce more modest hypothermia to protect the brain and other organs after cardiac arrest and during surgery on the aortic arch (the main artery carrying blood from the heart).
But this experimental procedure – called emergency preservation and resuscitation (EPR) – goes far beyond that, dramatically “decreasing the body’s need for oxygen and blood flow,” says Samuel Tisherman, MD, a trauma surgeon at the University of Maryland Medical Center and the trial’s lead researcher. This puts the patient in a state of suspended animation that “could buy time for surgeons to stop the bleeding and save more of these patients.”
The technique has been done on at least six patients, though none were reported to survive. The trial is expected to include 20 people by the time it wraps up in December, according to the listing on the U.S. clinical trials database. Though given the strict requirements for candidates (emergency trauma victims who are not likely to survive), one can’t exactly rely on a set schedule.
Still, the technology is promising. Someday we may even use it to keep patients in suspended animation for months or years, experts predict, helping astronauts through decades-long spaceflights, or stalling death in sick patients awaiting a cure.
Artificial womb
Another sci-fi classic: growing human babies outside the womb. Think the fetus fields from “The Matrix,” or the frozen embryos in “Alien: Covenant.”
In 1923, British biologist J.B.S. Haldane coined a term for that – ectogenesis. He predicted that 70% of pregnancies would take place, from fertilization to birth, in artificial wombs by 2074. That many seems unlikely, but the timeline is on track.
Developing an embryo outside the womb is already routine in in vitro fertilization. And technology enables preterm babies to survive through much of the second half of gestation. Normal human pregnancy is 40 weeks, and the youngest preterm baby ever to survive was 21 weeks and 1 day old, just a few days younger than a smattering of others who lived.
The biggest obstacle for babies younger than that is lung viability. Mechanical ventilation can damage the lungs and lead to a chronic (sometimes fatal) lung disease known as bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Avoiding this would mean figuring out a way to maintain fetal circulation – the intricate system that delivers oxygenated blood from the placenta to the fetus via the umbilical cord. Researchers at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia have done this using a fetal lamb.
The key to their invention is a substitute placenta: an oxygenator connected to the lamb’s umbilical cord. Tubes inserted through the umbilical vein and arteries carry oxygenated blood from the “placenta” to the fetus, and deoxygenated blood back out. The lamb resides in an artificial, fluid-filled amniotic sac until its lungs and other organs are developed.
Fertility treatment could benefit, too. “An artificial womb may substitute in situations in which a gestational carrier – surrogate – is indicated,” says Paula Amato, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. (Dr. Amato is not involved in the CHOP research.) For example: when the mother is missing a uterus or can’t carry a pregnancy safely.
No date is set for clinical trials yet. But according to the research, the main difference between human and lamb may come down to size. A lamb’s umbilical vessels are larger, so feeding in a tube is easier. With today’s advances in miniaturizing surgical methods, that seems like a challenge scientists can overcome.
Messenger RNA therapeutics
Back to “Star Trek.” The hypospray injector’s contents could cure just about any disease, even one newly discovered on a strange planet. That’s not unlike messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, a breakthrough that enabled scientists to quickly develop some of the first COVID-19 vaccines.
But vaccines are just the beginning of what this technology can do.
A whole field of immunotherapy is emerging that uses mRNA to deliver instructions to produce chimeric antigen receptor–modified immune cells (CAR-modified immune cells). These cells are engineered to target diseased cells and tissues, like cancer cells and harmful fibroblasts (scar tissue) that promote fibrosis in, for example, the heart and lungs.
The field is bursting with rodent research, and clinical trials have started for treating some advanced-stage malignancies.
Actual clinical use may be years away, but if all goes well, these medicines could help treat or even cure the core medical problems facing humanity. We’re talking cancer, heart disease, neurodegenerative disease – transforming one therapy into another by simply changing the mRNA’s “nucleotide sequence,” the blueprint containing instructions telling it what to do, and what disease to attack.
As this technology matures, we may start to feel as if we’re really on “Star Trek,” where Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy pulls out the same device to treat just about every disease or injury.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.